The Olssons, like parties in the case, would use the time between now and Friday to prepare fresh submissions on the issue of jurisdiction and whether John Sullivan QC and Sol-Law should be allowed to represent businesswoman Pamela Kimberly.
In a way, it is a replay of all the hearings on the breach of employment contracts, which the Court of Appeal determined in 2018 against Pamela Kimberly. The case began in 2006.
Mr. and Mrs. Olsson who chose to represent themselves appeared on video-link at yesterday’s hearing. The couple is seeking the removal of a stay in their quest to pursue an enforcement order granted by the Court of Appeal in 2018 against Pamela Kimberly over breach of employment contracts.
John Sullivan QC, a one-time business partner of Pamela Kimberly also appeared on the video link from Brisbane. Sol-Law’s Rodney Kingmele, who represented Pamela Kimberly appeared in person in court.
Jurisdiction or lack of it and whether Mr. Sullivan and Sol-law should be allowed to represent Pamela Kimberly dominated Friday morning’s proceedings. The Olssons told the Court Mr. Sullivan in particular should be disallowed from representing Pamela Kimberly in the case because they were both “too close.”
The Judge said there were “a lot of technical defects and confusion in the case.” He also noted he was not the only judge who had heard the case which goes as far back as 2006.
Prior to Friday’s lunchtime adjournment, Judge Keniapisia sought and received an undertaking from the Olssons that they would not publish any more articles on the case.
Mr. Sullivan pounced on the opportunity. He told the court he understood that reporter Alfred Sasako who has written extensively on the case, was in Court. He asked Judge Keniapisia to extend the undertaking to Mr. Sasako.
There was no immediate response from the Judge.
Earlier on Friday, Mr. Sullivan told the court that in his view the decision of the Court of Appeal was not final, arguing that Pamela Kimberly had been denied a right to be heard.
By ALFRED SASAKO