Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2024] NSWSC 1515 Hearing dates: 13, 28 November 2024 Date of orders: 28 November 2024 Decision date: 28 November 2024 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Payne JA Decision: (1) The Court declares that Michael Rollinson is in contempt of this Court for breaching the injunction set out in Order 1(a) and (b) made by Wilson J on 16 August 2021 on 12 occasions by his conduct between 17 June 2022 and 8 August 2022 in engaging in legal practice in New South Wales and representing or implying that he was entitled to engage in legal practice in New South Wales, as set out in Annexure A to these orders. (2) The Court declares that Michael Rollinson is in contempt of this Court for breaching the injunction set out in Order 1(a)(ii) made by Campbell J on 16 September 2021 by his conduct on 9 July 2022 in communicating with an employee or officer of the Local Court of New South Wales in relation to the matter of Vinja Holdings Pty Ltd v Style Investments Pty Ltd, as set out in Annexure B to these orders. (3) The amended notice of motion filed on 23 September 2022 in proceeding 2021/224727 and the notice of motion filed on 11 August 2022 in proceeding 2021/265078 be otherwise dismissed. (4) There is no order as to costs. Catchwords: CONTEMPT — Criminal contempt — Sentence — Griffiths remand — compliance with conditions of remand — declarations made Legislation Cited: Legal Profession Uniform Law 2015 (NSW), s 22 Cases Cited: Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1390 Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2021] NSWSC 1090 Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2021] NSWSC 1319 Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2022] NSWSC 407 Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2024] NSWCA 84 Category: Sentence Parties: Council of the NSW Bar Association (plaintiff) Michael Kelvyn Rollinson (defendant) Representation: Counsel: K Richardson SC; D Habashy (plaintiff) M Coffey (sol) (defendant) Solicitors: Hicksons (plaintiff) Gells Lawyers (defendant) File Number(s): 2021/224727; 2021/265078 Publication restriction: Nil JUDGMENT – EX TEMPORE Amended in accordance with the principles in Bar-Mordecai v Rotman [2000] NSWCA 123 at [194] 1. PAYNE JA: In 2023 in Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson (No 2) [2023] NSWSC 1390, (Rollinson (No 2) [2023]), Mr Rollinson pleaded guilty to 13 counts of contempt. Those contempts were committed while Mr Rollinson was serving a suspended sentence imposed on 8 April 2022 by Beech-Jones CJ at CL (before his Honour's elevation to the High Court) in Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2022] NSWSC 407. In what follows familiarity with both decisions is assumed. 2. The offending conduct, which occurred between 17 June 2022 and 8 August 2022, comprised 12 breaches of an injunction granted by Wilson J in August 2021 (Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2021] NSWSC 1090) and one breach of an injunction granted by Campbell J in September 2021 (Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2021] NSWSC 1319). 3. In Rollinson (No 2) [2023], I imposed what is colloquially known as a Griffiths remand, and made the following orders: 1. Remand the proceedings for sentence to 13 November 2024 at 10am on the condition that Mr Rollinson enter an agreement to comply with the following conditions: 1. To be of good behaviour (which includes, for the avoidance of doubt, compliance with the orders of the Court made by Wilson J on 16 August 2021 and Campbell J on 16 September 2021). 2. To accept no contact from and initiate no contact with Vincent Stanizzo. 3. To attend the medical practice East Sydney Doctors at 102 Burton Street, East Sydney, at least once every three months and to accept all reasonable advice, treatment and referral. 4. Upon the receipt of his Medicare Card, to make an appointment within 7 days to attend the Memory and Cognition Clinic at the Prince Alfred Hospital and thereafter accept the treatment, assistance and supervision made available to him by the staff of the Centre. 5. To appear before the Supreme Court as directed. 6. A written report about compliance with orders (a) to (e) is to be provided by email [from] the plaintiff's representatives and to the Associate to Payne JA by 9 February 2024 at 4pm. 7. A further report about compliance with orders (a) to (e) is to be provided by email [from] the plaintiff's representatives and to the Associate to Payne JA by 6 November 2024 at 4pm. 8. Liberty to apply to the Court for a variation of the conditions on 3 days notice. 1. Adjourn the plaintiff's application for costs on the amended notice of motion filed on 23 September 2022 and the notice of motion filed 11 August 2022 until 13 November 2024. 1. On 17 November 2023, Mr Rollinson provided my associate with the signed copy of the agreement to comply with the conditions imposed. 2. I received the written report the subject of Order 1(f) on 9 February 2024 and the further report the subject of Order (1)(g) on 4 November 2024. Both reports attested to Mr Rollinson's compliance with the orders I made in Rollinson (No 2) [2023]. 3. The First Compliance Report dated 9 February 2024 stated that Mr Rollinson had been of good behaviour, had not been in contact with Mr Stanizzo, had attended doctors' appointments and had scheduled an appointment with the Memory and Cognition Clinic. 4. On 19 April 2024, Leeming JA, Stern JA and Griffiths AJA ordered that Mr Rollinson's name be removed from the roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court under s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2015 (NSW): Council of the NSW Bar Association v Rollinson [2024] NSWCA 84. 5. The Second Compliance Report dated 4 November 2024 stated that Mr Rollinson had been of good behaviour, had complied with the orders made by Wilson J and Campbell J and had not been in contact with Mr Stanizzo. Mr Rollinson had attended doctors' appointments and had accepted and attended the referral to the Memory and Cognition Clinic. Two reports from doctors at the Memory and Cognition Clinic were enclosed. It was clear that Mr Rollinson had attended all appointments with the clinic and submitted to any tests, treatments and referrals that were required. 6. Without descending into the detail, Dr Ahmed, in a report dated 14 May 2024, and Dr Mowszowski, in a report dated 19 July 2024, discussed Mr Rollinson's difficulty in making rational decisions and possible cognitive impairments. Broadly speaking those reports were consistent with the findings I made in 2023 about Mr Rollinson's deteriorating cognitive function. Further tests and treatment have been scheduled in 2025 with Dr Ahmed and Dr Mowszowski. Mr Rollinson continues to receive care from his GP. 7. I am satisfied that Mr Rollinson has complied in full with the conditions imposed by the orders I made in Rollinson (No 2) [2023]. Further evidence 1. In preparation for the hearing on 13 November 2024, the Council of the NSW Bar Association in written submissions accepted that Mr Rollinson had complied with the orders I made in Rollinson (No 2) [2023] and originally proposed orders. 2. The Council, however, provided an affidavit of Ms Tayah Lee Stevenson affirmed 8 November 2024. This affidavit related to recent email correspondence with a former client of Mr Rollinson who stated that he had made a complaint to the Legal Services Commission about the conduct of Mr Rollinson which was said to have occurred in the period 2016-2019. 3. On 12 November 2024, the day before the matter was originally due to be finalised, a further affidavit of Ms Stevenson, affirmed 12 November 2024, was filed. Ms Stevenson annexed further correspondence with Mr Rollinson's former client. The former client had confirmed his complaint about Mr Rollinson was made prior to 2021, when the orders the subject of these proceedings were made. The fact of the complaint may therefore be put to one side as irrelevant to any possible contempt of orders made in 2021. Mr Rollinson's former client, however, also provided screenshots taken in late 2024 of two websites, "ZoomInfo" and "Australian Lawyers Directory", which listed Mr Rollinson as a practising barrister. Ms Stevenson confirmed in the affidavit that Mr Rollinson's former email address, even if retrievable from either of these websites, was deactivated. Mr Rollinson's former client also provided a screenshot of Mr Rollinson's Commonwealth Government Australian Business Number (ABN) and associated trading name available on the "ABN Lookup" website of the Australian Business Register which described him as a barrister. 4. At the hearing on 13 November, Mr Rollinson agreed to provide written consent to the Council of the Bar Association to approach ZoomInfo and Australian Lawyers Directory and ask that the listing relating to Mr Rollinson be taken down. I directed Mr Rollinson to provide an affidavit identifying whether he had said or done anything to cause the listing of his details on these websites. I also directed the parties to investigate the feasibility of changing Mr Rollinson's ABN website entry. On 13 November 2024, I made the following orders: (1) Leave granted to file the affidavit of Tayah Lee Stevenson affirmed 12 November 2024 in Court. (2) Direct that any affidavit and authority by Mr Rollinson be filed and served by 4pm on Friday 15 November 2024. (3) Direct that any evidence on behalf of the Council of the NSW Bar Association be filed and served by 4pm on 27 November 2024. (4) Matter stood over for sentence until 10 am on 28 November 2024. (5) Liberty to apply by email to the Associate of Payne JA upon 24 hours notice. 1. Mr Rollinson filed a further affidavit on 15 November 2024. The affidavit stated that Mr Rollinson has had no contact at any time with Australian Lawyers Directory or ZoomInfo. Mr Rollinson did not cause his name to be listed by these websites. Mr Rollinson was not aware that he was listed on those websites. Annexed to the affidavit was a bundle of documents obtained by Mr Rollinson's solicitor from searches of those websites. Those documents included online listings and contact details taken from the Australian Lawyers Directory for apparently current barristers "Payne SC, Anthony", and the late "Evatt, Clive" who died in 2018. I have been a judge of this Court since 2016. I have never had any contact with the Australian Lawyers Directory and was unaware of the entry. I have no hesitation in accepting Mr Rollinson's evidence that he did not cause his name to appear on these websites and that he was unaware of the entries. 2. Mr Rollinson confirmed that he holds an ABN to which was attached the trading name "Mr M K Rollinson Barrister". The ABN is no longer registered for GST. I accept Mr Rollinson's evidence that the ABN Lookup website will no longer refer to trading names from November 2025 as trading names will be replaced with registered business names. 3. On 27 November 2024, the Council of the Bar Association filed an affidavit of Ms Chloe Mae Ellis sworn 27 November 2024. Ms Ellis confirmed that Mr Rollinson had taken steps to remove his name from ZoomInfo and that Mr Rollinson was no longer listed by that website. The Australian Lawyer's Directory page was also removed at the request of the Council. 4. Ms Ellis confirmed that the Council does not seek any further steps to be taken in respect of Mr Rollinson's entry on the ABN Lookup website. Conclusion and orders 1. I am satisfied that Mr Rollinson did not cause himself to be listed and was not aware that he was so listed with Australian Lawyers Directory or ZoomInfo. I am satisfied that both pages referring to Mr Rollinson have now been taken down. I am satisfied that Mr Rollinson was not in breach of the orders made by Wilson J or Campbell J by reason of his listing with Australian Lawyers Directory or ZoomInfo. 2. I am satisfied that for federal taxation record keeping purposes Mr Rollinson must maintain his ABN and associated trading name until it is replaced on the relevant federal website in 2025. I am satisfied that, despite Mr Rollinson's historical trading name being included next to his ABN, Mr Rollinson has not been holding himself out as a barrister. The listing of his now defunct trading name for historical taxation purposes is not a breach of any order of the Court. 3. I am satisfied that none of the matters raised by Mr Rollinson's former client demonstrate any arguable breach of the orders made by Wilson J, Campbell J, Beech-Jones CJ at CL or me. 4. I am satisfied that Mr Rollinson's deteriorating cognition was a substantial reason for his offending behaviour. Given Mr Rollinson's compliance with the orders I made in Rollinson (No 2) [2023], I am satisfied for the reasons I then stated that any term of actual imprisonment is inappropriate. On all of the evidence I am satisfied that there is no realistic prospect of further offending by Mr Rollinson of the kind the subject of these proceedings and that he will continue to access appropriate treatment to manage his conditions. 5. Having regard to all the purposes of sentencing, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to make declarations in relation to the 13 charges of contempt to mark the disapproval of the Court. I am satisfied that the orders now jointly proposed on behalf of the Council and Mr Rollinson which I will shortly pronounce are appropriate to be made. 6. Accordingly, I make the following orders: 1. The Court declares that Michael Rollinson is in contempt of this Court for breaching the injunction set out in Order 1(a) and (b) made by Wilson J on 16 August 2021 on 12 occasions by his conduct between 17 June 2022 and 8 August 2022 in engaging in legal practice in New South Wales and representing or implying that he was entitled to engage in legal practice in New South Wales, as set out in Annexure A to these orders. 2. The Court declares that Michael Rollinson is in contempt of this Court for breaching the injunction set out in Order 1(a)(ii) made by Campbell J on 16 September 2021 by his conduct on 9 July 2022 in communicating with an employee or officer of the Local Court of New South Wales in relation to the matter of Vinja Holdings Pty Ltd v Style Investments Pty Ltd, as set out in Annexure B to these orders. 3. The amended notice of motion filed on 23 September 2022 in proceeding 2021/224727 and the notice of motion filed on 11 August 2022 in proceeding 2021/265078 be otherwise dismissed. 4. There is no order as to costs. 1. I note that the suspended sentence imposed by Beech-Jones CJ at CL has not yet expired but in all the circumstances I do not propose to make any order affecting the terms of that suspended sentence which will expire in accordance with its terms in 2025. ********** Annexures A&B.docx DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 28 November 2024