pleading.com.au

Continually being updated, last update 19 January 2017David James Hambleton David James Hambleton    TO THE COURT DOCUMENTS 
trustee in bankruptcy who works as a director at Rodgers Reidy (Qld) Pty Ltd, (company extract) (David Hambleton CV) is getting sued by a bankrupt Gordon Craven whose estate he is administrating and the bankrupt's wife for her equity as beneficial owner of real estate (The Property The Property ) to which Hambleton had NO entitlement, being wrongly siezed and sold by Hambleton who thinks he is above the law, and who is now undergoing a role reversal by being investigated and sued by the bankrupt.

The trustee Hambleton offered zero atonement, ignored an offer of settlement to avoid litigation, and failed to even provide an explanation, he even sabotaged a previous court proceeding to stop his wayward conduct, by breaching an agreement to pay sale proceeds into court (District Court File). Consequently a fresh court proceeding was filed on 27 September 2016 in the District Court Brisbane (District Court File) for in excess of $500,000 which now includes aggravated and exemplary damages for his offensive and insulting high handed conduct. The fresh proceeding is about how Hambleton bullied and influenced his way into becoming appointed the power of attorney for the bankrupt's daughter (Penelope Djordjevic nee Craven the First Defendant), who held the Property in trust for her mother.

Once he achieved the power of attorney (POA), Hambleton then helped himself to property belonging to the bankrupt's wife (Penelope's mother) including trying to sell 2 shipping containers Shipping Containers on the Property which belonged to her. Hambleton reckons he had them sold to ANL Containers and was going to complain to police when they vanished prior to collection, well BooHoo Hambleton the beneficiary was able to retrieve them back and sell them herself. Hambleton then falsely defamed Gordon and his wife over an extensive period by publishing that they had abandoned her Property when in fact Hambleton's henchmen had trespassed and evicted these age pensioners in their retirement years from the Property while they were not home. Hambleton then let the uninhabited Property be run into the ground and be vandalised and incur thefts, and he eventually sold it for far less than it was worth, keeping most of the proceeds for himself and giving none to the true owner.... the beneficiary, saying that she was not entitled!! after admitting that she was a beneficiary. Prior to these events the beneficiary did have a lawyer that had put a caveat on the Property, but he was such a useless dunce that unknown to the beneficiary he had failed to lodge it correctly, allowing Hambleton to swoop and take his shameful and outrageous advantage of the beneficiary. It's all (and much more) in the 54 page Claim and Statement of Claim

THE UNDERHANDED TRICK
The beneficiary was reliant on the previously mentioned agreement for Hambleton to pay the sale proceeds into court and as long as this happened the failed caveat was not pivotal. The useless dunce kept his negligence from the beneficiary until early March 2016 when he without notice just quit, leaving the beneficiary unrepresented and without a caveat. In February 2016 Hambleton had achieved a contract to sell the Property, and as said before, for far less than it was worth. However Hambleton and his lawyers made no attempt to inform the beneficiary of their intentions to repudiate and dishonour the agreement and ignored correspondence from the beneficiary. Contrary to good ethics and contract law in the circumstances, they in fact intended to and did, keep it a secret that they were not going to pay the money into court and they did not advise the beneficiary of their underhanded trick until two weeks after the sale had been completed in mid March 2016. Of course by then, it was too late to file another caveat. Was this a lawyers dirty trick?... contact Gordon and provide your thoughts. When Judge Robertson interrogated Hambleton's lawyer Mr. Leslie Moore nee Venville (in the previous court proceeding), as to if he thought it was ethical to breach the agreement during and relating to a court proceeding, the lawyer replied, "it hadn't crossed my mind your honour"

As there had been no money paid into court, and the Property was sold, there was nothing else to decide according to Judge Robertson, and the matter was struck out (i.e. sabotaged). The useless dunce did eventually refund his fees under consumer guarantee legislation (yes lawyers are subject to this legislation) to the beneficiary, but he did need some prompting because of the free website his law firm was given, similar to this one.

After being handled by Hambleton, in June 2015 Penelope had gone to ground and avoided being served with the court documents, however that was overcome by a Court Order in the current court proceeding for substituted service to her Facebook account, which she then promptly closed down. All because Penelope became brainwashed after marrying this despotic rat... Peter Djordjevic Peter Djordjevic who looks like something from ISIS and who provides Penny with her legal advice.

INVALID EXERCISE OF POWER
Apart from trying to justify his conduct within the statutory duty imposed on him as set out in the AFSA performance standards for bankruptcy trustees, (see AFSA whitewash complaint), the main trouble now for Hambleton is that Penelope as the then trustee for her mother the beneficiary owner of the Property, was required in law to abide by her trustee duties and also her fiduciary duty (the highest standard of care). As such, her duties and standard of care didn't include her providing a POA to Hambleton, and in doing so, her power as trustee was not validly exercised. She in fact needed consent from the beneficiary owner to provide the POA to Hambleton. There was no consent. Even if the beneficiary was Gordon and his wife as Hambleton wrongly alleges, Penny knew that she held the Property as trustee and there was still no consent. Hambleton has admitted that he knew Penny held a fiduciary duty to the beneficiary, and he knew that Penny had no authority to provide a POA to sell the Property without consent, therefore to get a POA, it was essential to go to court to try and get a court order. He didn't do that, instead he threatened to haul Penny into the Federal Court for interrogation and claim his costs from her, together with unduly influencing her and offering her 50% of the Property sale proceeds in order to get the POA, which when provided was also invalid because she lacked the power to provide it. Of course Penny was also taking legal advice from her clueless treacherous scab of a husband, and it would appear from his belligerence, Hambleton did too. I guess it's no wonder that Penny's loyalty to her mother was impaired.

So instead of testing the matter in court as the bankruptcy trustee did in the Supreme Court matter of Clout v Markwell [2001] QSC, where trustee Clout sought and failed to get his hands on property belonging to a beneficiary, Hambleton has foolishly cut corners in dealing with the Property without proper authority, and as said before, he sabotaged a previous court proceeding where he could have applied for a court order. Tamer v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy [2016] NSWSC was a case where the trustee in bankruptcy ignored the beneficiary's interests and actually transfered the family home into his own name. Wrong wrong wrong, a constructive trust for Tamer was declared and the trustee had to fix his errors. Arguing a Trust on Bankruptcy provides a simple commentary on the matter. Moral of the story - title doesn't always show beneficial ownership.

Now Hambleton is ducking, diving and dodging answering the hard questions being put to him in the current court proceeding including making evasive blanket denials and nonadmissions in his Defence pleading without providing direct explanations for the denials and nonadmissions. This is in blatant contravention of Court Rule 166 - Denials and Nonadmissions, because he says he is "confused" and it's all "irrelevant", however as a consequence of his improper denials, subrule (5) of the Court Rule makes them become deemed admissions.

Gordon Craven was made bankrupt when, in the public interest and without representation, he sued and lost to persons that are involved in the conduct regarding consumers, florists and review sites as shown at the following websites: Ready Flowers Review and Ready Flowers Australia. The only consolation to Gordon is that it cost the persons (the Hegarty clan) well over $200,000 to employ a legal team to represent them over a 6 year period, together with also attempting to sue Gordon and his wife for defamation (District Court File), for which the result is, those persons now appear to be in financial trouble... SEE ready Flowers Unravels, whilst apparently also being under investigation by the ACCC... more info on that is HERE.

After Hambleton wrongly and secretly siezed around 20 essential domain names belonging to the beneficiary's florist company website in order to sell them, he then wrote to the hosting company FLUCCS that hosted those domains causing a closure of the company account. Why did he do this?... well the term malicious comes to mind as the domains were virtually worthless, did not belong to the bankrupt, and along with the hosting were paid for by the company and only of value to the company business. Hambleton then extended Gordon's bankruptcy from 3 to 8 YEARS for refusing to hand over the domain readyflowersreview.hk registered in Hong Kong which he purports to have confidentially sold to colleague/creditor Peter Hegarty of Ready Flowers for one hundred dollars. A mate of Gordon would have paid two hundred dollars if given the opportunity, and heaven knows what someone that hates Hegarty's guts would have paid, like someone from HERE. Anyhow at some time in the future the Federal Circuit Court or Federal Court is likely to hear more about all this pursuant to Control of trustees by the Court legislation, as Hambleton not only wrongly siezed and sold the beneficiary's Property, he also plundered her company business. 

Interesting to note that Hambleton's lawyer has four of the Hegarty clan Peter Hegarty, Thomas Hegarty, Deborah Hegarty and Sebastian Hegarty, as his Facebook FRIENDS.
underhanded

free responsive web design

Draft Statement of Claim

PDF format

The Reply

PDF format
CAUSES OF ACTION:  Breaches of Trust  • Breaches of Fiduciary Duty  • Unconscionable Conduct  • Equitable Fraud  • Trespass  • Continuing Trespass  • Wrongful Eviction  • Defamation  • Assisting Breach of Trust  • Breach of Agreement  • Receiving Trust Money  • Misfeasance in Public Office
AUTHORITIES INCLUDE:  2 limbs of Barnes v Addy (1874)  •  Plenty v Dillon •  Kuru v State of NSW  (aggravated & exemplary  damages in 2008 - $418,265  for trespass by police)
RELIEF:  Numerous Delarations  • Damages  • Aggravated Damages  • Exemplary Damages • Vindication and Vengeance for being treated like a dog.
LEGAL ADVICE TO PLAINTIFFS: QPILCH
HAMBLETON DEFENDANT and READY FLOWERS LAWYERS: Archibald and Brown (who the Ready Flowers' $200,000 went to) with principle lawyer Leslie Venville who changed his name to Leslie Moore (who checks this website out on a regular basis) and debt collector partner in litigation Semele Moore. Here is  some history with Venville and Co.
Archibald and Brown
 employs Craig Lindley  Craig Lindley  process server, publicly reprimanded and fined $7,000 by QCAT for DISHONESTY.

Contact Form

we would like to hear from any persons with previous complaints regarding David Hambleton of Rodgers Reidy     
Hambeton and his  lawyer can always access a right of reply via this contact form