Waterstreet’s unconvincing tax performance … Last minute scramble not to appear in the Dizzo … Judge Gibson unimpressed … Wot’s going on at Rake Chambers? … Nick Bonyhady reports on the latest drama 

The latest blow was from the NSW District Court where Judge Judy Gibson  gave judgment to the Deputy Commissioner of Taxation who was chasing the old weirdo for over $420,000.  

Waterstreet failed to appear in person or be legally represented at the hearing. At 10:06 on the day of the hearing (March 7), Waterstreet’s name was called three times outside the courtroom. There was no response. 

Judge Judy Gibson noted that he had not only failed to lodge his income tax returns, but also to make GST and PAYG withholding payments “over what appears to be have been an extended period of time”. 

According to the tax office’s statement of claim, Waterstreet had failed to lodge income tax returns for the 2012-2015 financial years.

However, in Waterstreetian form the hearing contained some theatrical elements. Ten minutes after the trial was set to begin, a lawyer for the deputy commissioner received a typo-ridden email from the defendant explaining his absence: 

Dear Ms McGregor, as advised by my former clerk there is no one available to appear for me today. accordingly [sic] I ask you through your counsel to advise the court that I have been unable to obtain representation, and apologise to the court and yourself. I have been advised that I am in no position to defend this action and without prejudice withdraw further defence. I am advised to take action under the provisions of Bankrupcy Act and ope [sic] to do so. I had this matter down in diary for tomorrow and as usual the shoemakers children are worst shod. You can show this email and contents to court by way of explanation and meant no disrespect, Yours Sincerely, Charles Waterstreet .

Sent from my iPhone”

Below was appended a note from Ryan Coleiro, head clerk at Forbes Chambers stating on March 7 at 9.10 am: 

“Dear Charles, 

I am sorry but I have not been able to find anyone who can go and do this.” 

Judge Gibson took a dim view of Waterstreet’s explanation. HH observed that until the previous Thursday the defendant had legal representation and he had “his own experience to draw upon to know that when a hearing is listed for two days it commences on the first day, and not on the second”.

His barrister had withdrawn from the case on February 2, 2018 and his solicitors had withdrawn on March 2, – five days before the hearing. 

It is not clear why Waterstreet had been unable to obtain legal representation or whether his only effort to do so had been to contact Forbes Chambers, where he had previously plied his trade before being required to set up shop at his new digs, Rake Chambers.

In November last year allegations of sexually inappropriate conduct were made against the barrister by Tina Huang, a law student who very briefly worked for him.

Huang alleged that Waterstreet had shown her of a male member being masturbated. Contrary to his denials, evidence subsequently emerged that it was indeed Waterstreet’s penis in the video. 

Another woman who worked for Waterstreet and a third who had been interviewed by him also alleged that he had engaged in inappropriately sexualised behaviour with them. Waterstreet continues to the deny the allegations. 

Waterstreet subsequently withdrew from a planned Q&A special on sexual harassment following stern advice from the NSW Bar n’ Grill that it would “not be appropriate” for him to appear.  

Despite Waterstreet’s absence from the District Court hearing, Judge Gisbon noted the proper approach is not to “merely rubber-stamp the other party’s claims”. 

HH cited her own recent judgement in Prime Marble & Granite Pty Ltd (ACN 077 393 938) v Mehajer, a case concerning the controversial former Auburn deputy mayor Salim Mehajer, in support of the proposition that the judge owes an obligation of fairness to the missing party.

However, Judge Gibson held there was no unfairness to Waterstreet in proceeding to judgment because he had been amply informed of the date of the hearing and had enough time to instruct replacement lawyers or appear in person.

Waterstreet did not address the substantive issues in the case in any of the affidavits he had filed with the court, quite apart from which he had failed to file affidavits ordered in previous directions hearings. Judge Gibson said:

“The defence itself, as is clear from the contents of the documents … does not identify any defence by reason of the operation of any taxation legislation.”

Consequently, HH awarded judgement for the plaintiffs, with costs. 

Normally, the bar council gets into Bureau de Spank mode in cases where barristers have failed to file returns or pay tax for extended periods.  

In Rake, the ABC series that its star Richard Roxburgh insists is not based on Waterstreet’s life, the hero struggles through a long running taxation dispute which ends when the presiding judge dies shortly before he is due to sentence Rake for contempt.  

In Waterstreet’s case, fiction and truth have maintained an eerie synergy. 

See: 
NewMatilda
Special investigation 

Justinian 
Porn barrister’s #MeToo moment 

Deputy Commissioner of Taxation v Charles Christian Waterstreet