David Hambleton of Rodgers Reidy gets SUED

Continually being updated, last update 25 March 2017

District Court progress:

HEARING: Friday 27 January 2017, Application for Default Judgment on First Defendant who has not filed a Defence -  AustLii          
HEARING: 17 February 2017. Continuation of application for Default Judgment on First Defendant who has not filed a Defence.          


GOOGLE REVIEWS: David Hambleton of Rodgers Reidy liquidators

GOOGLE MAP REVIEWS Google reviews of David James Hambleton without evidence, these reviews cannot be endorsed by this website or its publisher GOOGLE REVIEWS Google reviews of Rodgers Reidy


RODGERS REIDY, QLD, NSW, VIC and INTERNATIONAL, all got SEVERELY UPSET by a GOOGLE ADWORDS ADVERTISEMENT campaign putting this website NUMBER ONE when a search was performed for RODGERS REIDY or DAVID HAMBLETON. Without notice Gordon publisher (along with GOOGLE AUSTRALIA) was ordered by  URGENT INJUNCTION in the FEDERAL COURT SYDNEY. A  FURTHER ORDER  was made with notice and supported by  THIS AFFIDAVIT. This APPLICATION  is now listed for 2 May 2017 seeking orders on behalf of David Hambleton.   
•    The URGENT INJUNCTION judgment delivered by Justice Bromwich on 1 February 2017
•    LETTER TO Stephen Polczynski LAWYER FOR RODGERS REIDY about standing to sue for defamation 
•     IT'S NOT 'DEFAMATION'... IT'S NOW alleged to be Malicious Falsehood and/or Misleading or Deceptive Conduct  not revealed in the  APPLICATION
Proving Malicious/Injurious Falsehood versus Defamation SEE HERE. It is notoriously difficult to establish  SEE HERE. This website is not published in Trade or Commerce so it would seem that  Misleading or Deceptive Conduct is out the window. This Federal Court proceeding is to be vigorously defended and counterclaimed for proving that everything published in this website is TRUE and applying to set aside the "urgent injunction", which will potentially cost  Rodgers Reidy hundreds of thousands, at Sydney CBD lawyer rates -  LETTER TO FEDERAL COURT

David James Hambleton David James Hambleton    to the District Court (Brisbane) documents 
trustee in bankruptcy and Second Defendant, who works as a director at Rodgers Reidy (Qld) Pty Ltd, liquidator accountants (company extract) (David Hambleton CV) (Registration Detailsis getting sued in the District Court Brisbane 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, for Hambleton's conscious disregard for the rights of Gordon's wife.

HAMBLETON'S CONDUCT, has caused enormous horror, hurt, sadness, mental distress and anguish to my wife (and myself), taken away my wife's financial future in her retirement years, robbed our youngest daughter with 2 young children of her share to proceeds from the family home, and perhaps the worst of all has been a major factor in my wife and myself being alienated by our eldest daughter Penelope, who we love very much and are unable to contact, having no knowledge as to her whereabouts and as such we are deeply worried about her.

And now to add insult to the injury of being treated like a dog, four Rodgers Reidy companies sue Gordon for telling the truth, because they are worried that the truth may impact on their Marcs and David Lawrence, $30 million administration. Well to put it as politely as possible.... Gordon says bollocks to them, they ought to be more concerned about the conduct of their director, instead of bully boy and intimidation tactics to try and conceal Hambleton's conduct, which makes Rodgers Reidy just as bad.

The trustee Hambleton who charges $500 per hour for his services, offered zero atonement, ignored an offer of settlement to avoid litigation, and failed to even provide an explanation, fails to provide answers to questions put to him in this forum, and he even sabotaged a previous court proceeding to stop his wayward conduct, by dishonouring and breaching an agreement to pay the Property sale proceeds into court (District Court File). Instead he paid most of the sale proceeds to himself and 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 (Penny) Djordjevic nee Craven the First Defendant), who held the the Property as registered owner in trust for her mother the beneficiary.

It seems that accountants and lawyers who are given huge powers under the Bankruptcy Act and thus call themselves "trustees", like to stick together, as portrayed by comments in this article by Peter Gosnell's Sydney Insolvency News regarding this website. Such biased and inconsiderate dimwits overlook the pain and suffering caused to Janet Craven my wife (Pennys mother) who all the time has been an innocent (and solvent) party, that has been treated like a dog.

As per paragraph 37 of the Statement of Claim filed in the District Court, while knowing of the beneficiary's (Janet Craven's) claim, possession and tenancy of the Property, Hambleton instructed Penny to send him the following false statement by email in order to get his way, so that they could execute the Power of Attorney (POA) and a Deed of Settlement (the very next day), where it was also agreed to split the net proceeds of the sale of the Property between them, thus cutting out the beneficiary:

…I have already resolved any valid claims claims against the property. Mrs Janet Craven does not hold title, nor an equitable interest, in my property.

To avoid being hauled into Court, and no doubt with the goading from her money hungry treacherous scab of a husband, the false statement was in fact repeated by Penny to Hambleton as per instructions, and while it was true that Janet did not have the title in her name (as per the public record), the remainder was in fact totally false.

Further, as per paragraph 42 of the Statement of Claim filed in the District Court, Hambleton influenced Penny to agree to the following false statements that he had concocted in a Deed of Settlement between them:

•  “At the time of Penelope Craven becoming the sole registered owner of the Property [in August 2006], the Bankrupt Gordon Craven provided the deposit monies to purchase the Property from the sale proceeds of properties previously owned by him.
•  “[in August 2006] The Bankrupt Gordon Craven sought to vest his right, title and interest in the name of his daughter Craven to defeat creditors.

The statements were entirely false, and Hambleton has failed to provide any particulars of how Gordon allegedly provided the deposit monies or the identity of creditors he allegedly intended to defeat way back in August 2006. That's because he can't, by the whole thing being based on a bogus fabrication rather than fact.

Once he achieved the POA, Hambleton's henchmen then trespassed, evicted and locked out the beneficiary and Gordon age pensioners in their retirement years from the Property while they were not home, and thus locking them out of access to their belongings. Hambleton then helped himself to property belonging to the beneficiary (Penny's mother) including trying to sell 2 shipping containers Shipping Containers on the Property, with stored belongings and which belonged to the beneficiary, and Hambleton being fully aware that the containers belonged to the beneficiary. 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 on Rodgers Reidy letterhead that they had abandoned the Property when in fact they did not, which falsely left them with being labeled as bottom feeding riff-raff that abandon a property at willIt is profoundly annoying and frustrating, that Hambleton STILL serially perpetuates his lie of abandonment while ignoring the substantial evidence (that includes 2 sworn affidavits) and legal authority provided to him and his lawyers, that the Property was not abandoned. His oppressive belligerence makes his conduct all the more annoying and frustrating. Apparently it doesn't occur to Hambleton, that normal honest and diligent people, do not abandon a property and leave valuable possessions worth thousands behind, for someone like him to come along and loot.

After the wrongful eviction, Hambleton then let the uninhabited Property be run into the ground and be vandalised and incur thefts, until he eventually sold it for $348,000 some six months later. It was sold for far less than it was worth, considering all the improvements made as listed at paragraph 22 in the Statement of Claim, and being purchased 10 years earlier for $350,000 supported by 2 valuations by registered valuers. When sold, Hambleton kept most of the proceeds for himself giving none to the true owner.... the beneficiary who had worked for many years to pay the mortgage and make improvements, saying that she was not entitled!! after admitting multiple times that she was a beneficiary as per paragraphs 30 to 32 of the Statement of Claim.

Prior to these events the beneficiary did have a lawyer that had put a caveat on the Property on 8 October 2015, but he was such a useless dunce that unknown to the beneficiary he had based the caveat on an unstamped deed that he had prepared in 2008 (that was illegitimate unless over $20,000 in duty was paid, a little item that he failed to tell the beneficiary about) and also 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

Although the caveat was invalid for two reasons, this wasn't known at the time by the beneficiary and Hambleton had required the beneficiary to back the caveat up by initiating a court proceeding pursuant to subsection 126(2) of the Land Title Act, in order to to establish her interest claimed under the caveat. The useless dunce, went and started the District Court proceeding based on what he caused to become a defective caveat by failing to notify the land titles registrar of the court proceeding pursuant to subsection 126(4)(b) of the Land Title Act, and by it being invalid anyhow because of the unstamped deed. The agreement was then struck to pay the sale proceeds into court which Hambleton sabotaged (what he caused to be initiated by subsection 126(2)), by as said before, dishonouring and breaching his part of the agreement to pay sale proceeds into court.

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 a secret until early March 2016 when he without notice just quit, leaving the beneficiary unrepresented and without a caveat, and saying "it's all to difficult". 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 Archibald & Brown lawyers made no attempt to inform the beneficiary of their intentions to repudiate and dishonour the agreement and they ignored correspondence from the beneficiary. However the beneficiary had no reason to believe that the agreement would not be honoured. The beneficiary was wrong in her belief, contrary to good ethics and contract law in the circumstances, Hambleton and his lawyers 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 lodge another caveat.

Hambleton and his Archibald & Brown lawyers then washed their hands of the matter and cast blame on Penny for any loss the beneficiary had incurred. They told the beneficiary that she asked too many questions and that Hambleton was not the proper recipient for such questions, and further told her that as the matter was confidential she should direct her questions to Penny her daughter, who they well knew to be estranged from the beneficiary.  

Was this a Hambleton/lawyer dirty trick?...  contact Gordon  and provide your thoughts. Judge Robertson had no reservations about identifying that there had been a breach of agreement, and when he 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 had been 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. Was he actually colluding with the other side?... not unknown amongst the fraternity of unscrupulous lawyers.

After being handled by Hambleton, in June 2015 Penelope had gone to ground and unfortunately she needed to be made First Defendant in order to get at Hambleton. She avoided being served with the court documents and serving her was overcome by a Court Order by Judge Devereaux 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.

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 modelled on Schedule 4A of the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996, 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 against the beneficiary's interests. He didn't do that, as said before, 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 Penny lacked the power to provide it because of her being trustee for the beneficiary. 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 (in his own words by "avoiding costly and time consuming litigation"), and as said before, he sabotaged a previous court proceeding which he had caused to be initiated, 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 and transfer the property back to Tamer. Arguing a Trust on Bankruptcy provides a simple commentary on the matter. Moral of the story - title doesn't always show beneficial ownership, and should serve as a warning to trustees wielding the power of the Bankruptcy Act licensed to them by the Australian Financial Security Authority (AFSA)

Instead of enforcing a trustee's duties as set out here ("registered trustees are required to maintain the utmost professionalism, independence, impartiality, honesty and ethics in their dealings..."), in reality AFSA doesn't give a shit about a trustee's conduct, thus forcing it to be litigated in a court.

AFSA PUBLISHES AT - 3 The Legislative Framework > Schedule 4A Performance standards for trustees > 2.9 Ownership or interests in assets, as does Schedule 4A of the Bankruptcy Regulations 1996 at 2.9:

"In determining the ownership of, or an interest in, an asset that is part of divisible property, the trustee must act reasonably and claim only the amount that fairly represents the interest in, or value of, the asset."

ASSETS OF THE BENEFICIARY WERE NOT DIVISIBLE PROPERTY because she was not the person who was bankrupt.
 PLEASE EXPLAIN AFSA, or Mr. HAMBLETON at the Contact Form below 

Complaints were first made to AFSA on 21 April 2016 and 22 April 2016 via a defective online complaints form that AFSA published at the time. A response by Nanette Dewanto Senior Inspector Regulation and Enforcement provided a whitewash, by letter summarily dismissing the complaints by taking the side of Hambleton’s version of events without further investigation and fact gathering. As AFSA exhibited incompetence and bias in addressing complaints, there was no other option but to file the matter in the District Court (District Court File). A further complaint was made to AFSA regarding the Dewanto whitewash. A response was received from Charles Smith Director Inspector Regulation and Enforcement. He later advised that he would initiate an Internal Review by senior officer Paul Devellerez, and advised (which was interpreted as) a review that would be restricted to issues where only Hambleton could provide his side of the story, which as before is unlikely to be sworn. Considerable time was spent putting together details and supporting evidence to the beneficiary's complaints which was sent to Smith. Director Smith subsequently advised by emails of 6 and 7 February 2017 that the complaints are before the Court and as such will not be investigated. The following response was made to Director Smith copied to Veronique Ingram Inspector-General in Bankruptcy on 6 February 2017, (re-phrased to be more appropriate for publication):

"Are you telling me that you also, along with Hambleton, are refusing to accept the sworn affidavits of my wife and I as evidence regarding Hambleton's false allegations of abandonment?
No response on this particular request has been received.

So in the current District Court proceeding that may have been averted if AFSA had not been so useless, incompetent and biased, Hambleton is ducking, diving and dodging answering the hard questions being put to him, 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 166 makes them become deemed admissions. And now in an Amended Defence he falsely conjures up that the beneficiary's position is a SHAM, which is again in total contravention of court rules as his SHAM allegation it totally without particulars, as is required by Court Rule 157. However zero particulars does appear to be in line with a multitude of his defence statements that facts are not within his knowledge.

Gordon Craven was made bankrupt when, in the public interest as a service to consumers and without representation, he sued and lost to persons that are involved in deplorable 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 registered in Hong Kong and its website. Hambleton's Lawyers while acting for Ready Flowers, purport to have sold the domain to Ready Flowers for one hundred dollars ($100 EVIDENCE is at paragraphs 7 to 10 highlighted on the third page of this Defamation Action by Ready Flowers and Peter Hegarty). After the purported sale for $100 was published on this website, Hambleton then adjusted the $100 figure, and now claims at sub-paragraphs 33(b) and 33(c) of this AFFIDAVIT to the FEDERAL COURT that the sale figure is $10,000 (ten thousand dollars).

The contradiction is 


, which is it Hambleton... $100 or $10,000???
  contact Gordon  to let me know as if the $10,000 is false, it could be seen as the Absolute Liability offence of Attempting to Pervert the Course of Justice, the judicial power being that of the Commonwealth, and if false, Gordon will expect Rodgers Reidy and their deponent lawyer Stephen Polczynski to correct the Court Record and advise Justice Bromwich.

Ready Flowers cannot even pay its local florist supplier partners, SEE Ready Flowers Unravels and is suspected of trading while insolvent, so how was it going to come up with $10,000? A mate of Gordon would have paid a mere two hundred dollars if given the opportunity, and heaven knows what someone that hates Ready Flowers and the controlling Hegarty family'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.

free responsive web design

Draft Statement of Claim

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.
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 explain or access a right of reply via this contact form