“The precise origins of the phrase ‘all is one’ are somewhat elusive. It appears in Greek, and other philosophy. Generally, its meaning takes its colour from its milieu. Unadorned by context, broadly it may suggest or convey a type of unified purpose of persons operating or engaged in an endeavour, as well as those who are drawn into it. The professional relationships of the parties, initially connected through All Is 1 Pty Ltd, the first plaintiff (a company through which a legal practice is operated and trading under the name, Banga Legal (BL), at Oran Park) have disintegrated. Unlike the company namesake, they have had no collective unity.”
So said NSW Supremo Michael Meek in his opening stanza of All Is 1 Pty Ltd (Banga Legal) v Townsend – citing authority from Herakleitos in John Burnet, Early Greek Philosophy and Arthur Lindsley, The Problem of Evil, C.S. Lewis Institute.
Banga Legal is entangled in multiple proceedings regarding the cessation of employment of a former employee, Jessica Townsend.
The relationship between the parties has crumbled such that each party has commenced proceedings separately.
Jessica commenced work at Banga Legal in or about August 2022.
In about January 2025, she alleges that she was “admonished inappropriately” for seeking alternative employment, and belittled for her declining work and health burnout.
The firm and its principal, Samir Banga, are pursuing the matter in the equity division of the Supreme Court, alleging that Townsend breached her obligations of confidentiality.
Jessica, in turn, alleges breach of the Fair Work Act and is suing in Division 2 of the FCFC.
Despite litigation commencing over a year ago, neither party has filed a defence or response to the other’s respective court claims.
“So at odds are the parties in engaging with one another that despite them having commenced separate proceedings the best part of a year ago, neither of the opposing parties have filed a defence or response to the other’s respective court claims.”
In the latest instalment of the dispute heard in the Supreme Court this week, Meek J criticised both parties for this disparity, noting that separate proceedings are likely to result in inconsistent findings, inefficiency, and increased costs.
Consequently, although the listing was to merely amend the plaintiff’s statement of claim, HH stepped in and ultimately ordered a stay of proceedings so that the parties can confer to establish whether there is a more just, quick and cheap means of resolving their concurrent disputes.
“Notwithstanding the disintegration of the parties’ relationship, there is both a statutory mandate [Civil Procedure Act s.56], and good common sense for the parties and their legal representatives to embrace the type of unity benefitting the ‘All is 1’ (all-is-one) nomenclature, that since January 2025 has eluded them …”
The task of unifying these disparate proceedings is more legally complex than one may anticipate, given that the Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to determine the alleged breaches of s 340(1) of the Fair Work Act.
Nor does the Division 2 court have a directly conferred equitable jurisdiction, other than jurisdiction conferred on it in respect of a ‘matter’ arising under the Constitution or other federal statute.
Further issues are posed by a lack of cross-vesting legislation.
HH seems to suggest the Federal Court might do the trick, noting that it clearly has jurisdiction under the Fair Work Act, and arguably an accrued jurisdiction to deal with issues arising out of a common substratum of facts.
“In essence, practitioners are expected to appropriately lift their gaze purely from objectives of clients so that the overriding/overarching purpose informs their actions in managing their responsibilities both to clients and to the Court and to co-operatively communicate and act with one another to that end.
Commendably, having raised the above-mentioned issues and risks associated with fragmented litigation with them, both counsel readily acknowledged that this is a matter that needed to be grappled with.”
ALL IS 1 PTY LTD (t/as Banga Legal) v Townsend [2026] NSWSC 224