Lawyer X drama fails to stop Williams home auction

Gangland widow tells of “utter disbelief, horror” as last-ditch bid to save home from forced auction amid Lawyer X scandal flops.

Roberta Williams, right, and her daughter Dhakota arrive at the Supreme Court in Melbourne on Friday.

The family home of slain gangland figure Carl Williams will go to auction tomorrow after the Victorian Supreme Court rejected a last-ditch bid by his widow to stop the sale by the tax office.

Roberta Williams this week sought an injunction to delay the sale until after the royal commission into gangland informer Lawyer X.

Ms Williams was relying on recent revelations about the supergrass who she said in an affidavit was a “trusted friend and adviser” to the family.

In her affidavit, Ms Williams describes her reaction last week to discovering Lawyer X’s role.

“My reaction was one of utter disbelief and horror,” she says. “I haven’t been able to sleep since.”

Ms Williams’ father-in-law George Williams, a convicted drug trafficker, struck a deal with the Australian Taxation Office in 2013 whereby the ATO became the mortgagee on his Essendon property instead of him being forced to sell the home to cover his tax debt.

Williams died in 2016 owing more than $740,000 in unpaid taxes and the court heard the debt had since skyrocketed to “north of a million”.

The property is listed for sale with a reserve price of $750,000.

Sheriffs arrive at Roberta Williams’ Essendon home to reclaim it to pay a tax office debt back in October.

Lawyers for Ms Williams had argued the court could infer links between the tax officer handling the recovery proceedings and Victoria Police’s gangland taskforce at the time when Lawyer X was a registered informant.

This afternoon Justice Steven Moore found there was no evidence Lawyer X was advising George Williams when he made the deal with the ATO and there was no evidence she was involved with the ATO in relation to his tax debts.

He said if the royal commission uncovered evidence to support Ms Williams’ claims she would be able to seek damages against Lawyer X and others.