He turned down an offer of employment, then spent years in court claiming he had one
It started with a contract. In April 2019, a legal practitioner signed an agreement with law firm Kailash Lawyers to provide services as a contractor.
The contract was titled "Agreement for General Use." It had been freely negotiated. It stated expressly that the parties did not form an employer-employee relationship. And in around April 2020, when the firm's sole director offered to convert the practitioner to a permanent employee, he said no.
Then, in August 2020, Kailash ended the arrangement.
What followed was more than five years of litigation - and on September 24, 2026, the Federal Court put a stop to it.
In Kailash Lawyers Pty Ltd v Patial [2026] FCA 1403, a Federal Court judge made what the law calls a vexatious proceedings order - effectively banning the practitioner from starting or continuing any case in the Federal Court without the court's permission first. It is a rarely used power, described in the case law as "an extreme measure." The court found it was clearly warranted here.
The practitioner's argument never changed: he said he had been an employee, not a contractor, and that he had been unfairly dismissed.
The Fair Work Commission disagreed. In August 2021, a Commissioner found the practitioner was not an employee and the Commission had no power to hear his unfair dismissal claim. The evidence showed he had approached the firm himself seeking...
Taking your tablets and checking your sugar is only part of living with diabetes. Every day you also decide what to eat, what to trust, and whether the medicine is even necessary. Increasingly, th...