Conflict of Interest

Please note: justicecommand.com/Conflict of Interest is a work in progress: last edited March 2019.

justicecommand.com

Draft

Conflict of Interest

Author Graham Schorer 

A letter from Michael Shand barrister at Owen Dixon Chambers (Melbourne) to Landers & Rogers for the Attention of Mr Gordon Hughes or Mr Michael Champion’s dated 15 June 1990 (see –justicecommand.com / G.S. Conflict of Interest File 4 to 5) confirms Mr Gordon Hughes and a number of lawyers from Landers & Rogers were heavily involved in my Telstra Federal court action against Telstra from 1990 to 1992. This letter from Mr Michael Shand, confirms that Mr Gordon Hughes was one of the principal lawyers involved in my Telstra Federal Court action prior to accepting his role as the COT cases arbitrator in April 1994.

Why did Telstra ignore Dr Hughes’ conflict of interest associated with my previous Telstra-related Federal Court action addressing the same telecommunication issues less than four years later? Did they allow Dr Hughes to become the COT arbitrator aware that just four years previous damning evidence which would have assisted me in my Federal Court action against Telstra had been withheld from me by my legal team in which Dr Hughes was my advisor and therefore he or his arbitration unit might be called upon during the COT arbitrations to withhold similar damning documents from being assessed during the COT arbitrations.

The fact that Dr Hughes’ arbitration resource unit has admitted withholding relevant Telstra related arbitration documents from being investigated during the COT arbitration process (see Open letter File No/45-H and Open letter File No/46-F to 46-K). This admission suggests there is more to Telstra allowing Dr Hughes to become the COT arbitrator than meets the eye.

Please Each entry in the download Evidence File CAV Evidence File Part One (e.g. GS 1 etc.) refers to an Exhibit with the same number (e.g. Exhibit 1 supports entry CAV GS 1) and the Exhibits in the download are divided into separate folders called CAV-GS 1-88, CAV-GS 89154-b, CAV-GS 155-215 etc.

This internal Telstra fax (see the following link > Exhibit GS 448-A) dated 2 November 1990 was a fax from Telstra’s Corporate Solicitors Office to Telstra’s then recognised chief technical engineer, regarding Telecom v Golden Messenger Federal Court Legal Proceedings, which notes, among other items:

(3)  Telecom will also need to inspect any documents lodged by Golden Messenger as part of its (GM’S) discovery obligations.

(4)   Telecom needs to examine those documents pertaining to the test carried out on North Melb Exchange to determine if any of those documents have been generated as a result of an “interception”. If so, then Telecom will be precluded from disclosing them under the discovery process. I intend to ask (name deleted) of network investigations to undertake this task.

(5)   The Australian Government Solicitor, on behalf of Telecom, has written to the solicitors acting for Golden Messenger seeking their undertaking not to disclose to their client or others the contents of the report on the North Melb Exchange. To date, there has been no response.    

A further internal Telstra minute dated 7 November 1990 that Telstra’s, Manager, Business Network Planning, sent Telstra’s Executive General Manager, Telecom Business Services (FOI Folio 001801), noting that:

“It would appear that any concerns over the disclosure of the adverse report on the North Melbourne Exchange can now be set to rest as it will not be released until point (5) has been complied with” (see > GS 43)

On 21 November 2012 I produced a letter of understanding that included the wording:

“During the period that I retained Landers & Rogers, at no stage was I informed by Gordon Hughes or any other member of Landers & Rogers staff, that Telecom or the Australian Government Solicitor contacted them with information regarding the North Melbourne exchange.

Furthermore, had I known that Gordon Hughes had concealed knowledge of such an important document from me, I would not have accepted his appointment as the arbitrator in my arbitration process”  (See > GS 565).

This ‘Australian Government Solicitor’  letter is important because, when the arbitrator was appointed as the official arbitrator to the COT arbitrations, he did not advise me of this AGS letter or the fact that documents were concealed from me during my Federal Court action by my own legal firm to which Dr Hughes was a partner.

Worse, if that is at all possible concerning this issue is, that the person who received the 2 November 1990 letter link > GS 448-A, and then wrote his own interpretation of that same matter (see GS 43), was also named by a Telstra whistleblower, Lindsay White, as the person who had told him (see pages 36 and 38 of Senate – Parliament of Australia), that the first five COT Cases, including me, ‘had to be stopped at all cost’ from proving our arbitration claims.  It is therefore interesting to find that, four years earlier, in November 1990, this same person was already aware that the adverse report on the North Melbourne Exchange’ had been concealed from me during my Federal Court action against Telstra.

So, when Mr Hughes (now Dr Hughes) was first asked to arbitrate on the COT arbitrations of 1994, shouldn’t he have immediately advised me that information had been withheld from me during my Federal Court matters?

These two documents  > GS 448-A) and  GS 43) are directly related to the adverse findings of Telstra’s own investigations into the North Melbourne Exchange servicing my Golden Messenger courier business. Had I seen this AGS letter, concerning these adverse findings, I would hardly have accepted (two hundred thousand dollars) paid by Telstra when my official claim was for (two million dollars). The acceptance of this two hundred thousand dollars included exonerating Telstra from all liability. No sound-minded person, sitting on evidence such as the Australian Government Solicitors’ letter saying Telstra was grossly negligent under Section 52 of the Trade Practices Act and recommending settlement with me, would have accepted only 10 percent of his claim.

If my Court legal team did not withhold that AGS letter, then who did? It is clear from GS 448-A and GS 43 that Telstra sent this AGS letter to someone.