Lover, lawyer, judge, client: A day’s ‘work’ for Michael Lawler

Fair Work Commission vice-president Michael Lawler leapt to centre stage yesterday in the HSU case against his partner Kathy Jackson.

Fair Work Vice President and Kathy Jackson's partner Michael Lawlor leaves the Federal court in Sydney after the days proceedings.

Fair Work Commission vice-president Michael Lawler leapt to centre stage in a hearing before the Federal Court yesterday, in the Health Services Union case against his partner Kathy Jackson, which alleges misappropriation of $1.4 million in union funds.

In a dramatic day, Mr Lawler at one point publicly dumped his own lawyer in order to address the court himself — with the ­result that when he sought to ­reinstate her 15 minutes later she refused, declaring that as her ­instructions had been withdrawn she was not prepared to operate on a step-in, step-out basis.

Mr Lawler slipped through the doors to the Federal Court in ­Sydney at 2.15pm yesterday, ­almost as the hearing was set to commence, arriving separately from his and Ms Jackson’s legal team.

Ms Jackson did not attend the hearing, although on Monday she was in attendance, smiling for the cameras with a companion who described himself as just a close friend.

Mr Lawler, in a grey suit with bright-pink silk lining and a blue tie with polka dots, ran up the courthouse steps. In court 18B in Sydney, where a video link was established to judge Richard ­Tracey in Melbourne, Mr Lawler took out of his green carry-bag large files and a laptop, which he set up on the desk.

Yesterday’s proceedings were an extension of efforts by the HSU to freeze the ownership transfer — almost complete when it was revealed to the court a few weeks ago — of Ms Jackson’s home to Mr Lawler. It is a result of this freezing applic­ation that Mr Lawler has ­become legally entangled in the HSU case, given that he now ­(almost) owns Ms Jackson’s main asset, a house set amid rolling gardens overlooking the ocean.

The HSU’s barrister, Mark ­Irving, outlined a trail of union funds that had allegedly been used to pay a mortgage on a previous property owned by Ms Jackson. This was subsequently sold, and the profits deployed into the beachside home where the couple live and which is the subject of the freezing application. The HSU has alleged the property transfer is devised to put the house beyond the union’s grasp should it succeed in the trial.

Mr Lawler sat through yesterday’s hearing with barely disguised emotion, regularly sighing loudly, putting his head in his hands. After Justice Tracey sought an extension of an undertaking from Ms Jackson and Mr Lawler not to proceed further with transferring the beach property into his name, the hearing was adjourned for a few minutes.

Mr Lawler and the two lawyers for himself and Ms Jackson ­repaired to the corridor, where raised voices could be heard. The two lawyers led Mr Lawler away out of earshot of journalists seated in the court. “Michael, come here,” one said.

Outside the court windows, Sydney spread out — from city skyscrapers to the football sta­d­ium at Moore Park and on to the high-rise apartments of Kings Cross and the harbour beyond.

In a remarkable development, Mr Lawler suddenly returned to the court and, after sitting at the table for a few moments, announced that he wanted to address the court himself.

He strode to the microphone, whereupon a ­moment of drama ensued as Mr Lawler tried to use it and the judge, from Melbourne, repeatedly declared that he could not hear. Eventually Mr Lawler leaned closer in.

“Your Honour, it’s been necessary to withdraw my counsel’s ­instructions … which she only got after 1pm today,” Mr Lawler said, explaining that his lawyer had been unable to grasp matters during a brief adjournment.

He added that with the media in the court, his intervention would no doubt be “luridly” ­reported.

Justice Tracey betrayed no hint of astonishment, although Mr Lawler’s counsel, Claire Latham, looked stunned. Mr Lawler commenced a complicated explanation of the structure of de facto finances. He told the court that while he had been in the process of obtaining loans, there had been a tightening of prudential standards in the banking sector, making this difficult. Mr Lawler went on to ­explain to the court that he had been operating the mortgage for Ms Jackson while she had spent time in hospital last year.

At this point, Justice Tracey interrupted to remind Mr Lawler that he was addressing the court on his own behalf and could not speak for Ms Jackson, who had her own lawyer present.

Both Ms Jackson (through her lawyer) and Mr Lawler continued until next Monday their undertaking not to conclude the transfer of the beach property. Mr Lawler ­advised the judge that he would continue with his own evidence ­regarding the couple’s financial situation, and Ms Jackson’s ability to borrow, on Monday.

In closing, and before his failed attempt to reinstate his lawyer, Mr Lawler — who has been on sick leave for eight months of the past year from Fair Work but has been fully paid during that time on an annual salary of $435,000 — explained to the court that while he had a significant income he had no assets.

He said he had no money to pay for court transcripts and asked for leave to read the court’s own ­copies of transcripts at the commencement next Monday of Ms Jackson’s trial. “I have no transcripts, no money,” he said, pointing out that a transcript might cost $1800 for a day’s hearing. Justice Tracey responded that as no one had requested a transcript be made for the hearing in question, there simply wasn’t one available for Mr Lawler to read.

Mr Lawler, once a barrister himself, smiled briefly as he packed his bag at the end of the day, perhaps relieved to have been on his feet in court. He left with his lawyer, who had just resigned.