Odtojan Bryl Lawyers (OBL) and its principal , Ms Marie Odtojan (Ms Odtojan) has been implicated and framed in the following judgments where no such matters were raised in the said hearings and no evidence nor submissions were put to the court for the justices to record the judgment, that OBL/Ms Odtojan provided legal serves/in professional legal capacity in the 2016 NSW Local Court proceedings of Credit Corp Services Pty Limited (CCS) and Odtojan - Case No. 2014/<>, (LCProceedings) presided by Magistrate Sharon Freund and in subsequent proceedings relating to the said LCProceedings.

​

1. The judgment of Justices M. Leeming and <>.Kirk in the leave of appeal hearing of Marie Jossane Odtojan v Mile Kevin Condon  (2023/00<>) in the NSW Court of Appeal (NSW COA); and 

​

2. The judgment of Justices <>.White and <>.Bason in the leave of appeal hearing of Marie Jossane Odtojan v Nicolas George Ford (2023/00<>) and Marie Jossane Odtojan and Glynn t/a Glynns Lawyers (2023/00<>), in NSW COA.

​

For the protection of the OBL, its principal (Applicant/victim of alleged criminality/fraud recorded in the Statement of claims (SOC), and  Mr Bryl, solicitor who acted as a Mckenzie friend representing Ms Odtojan's case in the above said leave for appeal proceedings, this Notice is given that the  said Justices have recorded not limited to the following:

​

1. Facts and representations that are unsupported by any evidenec and/or was not ventialted in the court hearing court. (evidenced by court transcripts dated 31 May 2023 and 11 October 2023).

​

2. The applicable Laws, the Evidence Act NSW 1995 (EA), particularly s 91 & the credit laws, the National Consumer Credit Protection ACT 2009 (NCCPA 2009) put to the said justices int heir respective hearings where they acknowledged no contract exists and simply omitted and not applied the said applicable credit laws in the judgments. 

​

3. The justices in their respective hearing were on notice of the issue contesting that there was no contract that ecxists and the alleged false representations of Mr Ford giving evidence at the bar table in the LCproceedongs allegedly eliianting the issue of teh contract. The Justices spent extensive court time justifying a claim without a contrac tstating that a contract'could have been destroyed' ,they [CSS] gave all the docyments to Ms Odtojan what they had. There is no evifence is support of any of these representations made byt he justice. Justices White and Baston were asked whay tjey refer to as the contract havign rised the issue of s 170 of the credit code (first time riased in the history of the matter and not raised nor submitted bythe Repsondent). Notwithstanding their specualtio in court justifying that contract can be destroyed and with no contract before the,. the justice record that a contract exists and there is no issue on the matter.

​

4. Reliance on a previus judgmemt to prove a fact (this case contract) is impermissible under. 91 of EA. the justices were aware of the said leislation and was squarely put on notice. All juscitces including Judge Norton innthe Distict court wilyl contrvned s 91 of EA and ensure omit it in their judgment desoite being fully aware and on notice of s 91 EA.

​

2. The justices 

​

3. The justices were fully aware 

​

​

As the public/potential clients have raised questions about these matters we are constrained to give notices  where we have to clear our name from such false im;licatim that there is not will make our reports that span almost 10 years. 

 

This is public notice due to false representations and omission of evidence and law on a legal instrument, in the above-mentioned NSW COA judgments where such representations has been spread by Lawyers Weekly under the guise of fair reporting not disclosing their commercial relationship with DLA Piper (Lawyers for Mr Condon) and Piper Alderman (Lawyers for CCS).

​

Lawyers Weekly director Mr William <>, journalist <> and their lawyers Mr <> of <> has been given notice of their defamatory publication dated < July 2023 >

​

------------------------------------------------

Notes/Background:

​

1. A leave for appeal hearing in the NSW COA is a limited procedural hearing where the parties are given 20 minutes each to present their case confined to the standard template form the Applicant is to complete to make an application for leave to appeal. The respondent's then provides a response to the application. The  issues in contention are clearly identified in the parties submitted applicaiotn/response which are to be addressed at the hearing. Further the hearing is confined to what transpired in the primary hearing, in this case the interlocutory hearing presided by Judge Sharron Norton in the District Court on 16 February 2023. 

​

2. The issues and allegations against Mr Ford, Mr Condon and Mr Glynn are unresolved and not determined. No final hearing has been conducted. 

​

3. No substantive and/or final hearing can be conducted in a leave for appeal hearing and/or an intrlocuroty hearing. 

​

4. The evidence, yet to be timetabled as per court practice notes of the court, have not been filed and tested. Matters of evidence is not a matter to be addressed in the COA leave hearing. 

​

5. The leave hearing for all three matters pertains to the District Court judge, Sharron Norton's orders dated 16/2/2023 and <>/3/2023.  The three matters were heard at the same time on 16 February 2023.

No reasons were provided by Judge Norton in making the orders for Mr Condon in court 16/2/2023 and the judgments/reasons for Mr Ford and Mr Glynn dated <>/3/2023 are not published despite her honour stating she would.

 

6. The judgments/orders are not published by the District Court, including 2019 proceedings before Judge Strathdee, in relation to CCS and Piper Alder lawyers raising serious issues rising conduct constituting criminality. The said 2019 proceedings not a relevant matter before justices Kirk and Leeming and never vntialted nor put to the Ms Odtojan at the hearing was sinply recorded ont he judgment making allegations against  Ms Odtojan. 

​

7. The three respondents, Mr Condon, Mr Ford and Mr Glynn have never attended any of the court hearings conducted in the District Court and NSW COA in their respective matters. None of the respondents gave any evidence (affidavit or under oath in the witness box in court) throughout the court proceedings in the DC and COA.

​

8. Legislation, rules and processes disregarded.

​

9. Judge Norton disregarded evidnce Act particualrly s 91 of the EA despite sqauely ut to her. 

​

10. From the outset, before Ms Odtojan could serve the Statement of Claim on Mr Condon and Mr Glynn, Judicial Registrar James Howard (JR Howard) emailed all parties and Mr Ford's representaives  (where no notic of seric of appearance was served on Ms Odtojan by Mr Ford's solicoors). JR Howard direted all tjree parties to make an applocatom o dismiss Ms Odtojan's three claims 

 

​

------------------------------------------------

​

1. The judgment of Justices M. Leeming and <>.Kirk in the leave of appeal hearing of Odtojan v Condon in the NSW Court of Appeal (2023/00<>).

​

​

No such matter was ventilated before the Justices in the court hearing nor was Ms Odtojan put on notice of such matters which implicates OBL and herself as legal practitioner in the LC proceedings this includes giving clear notice thay they intnted to refer her and Mr Bryl to the Office of Legal services commissioner                                                                                                                                                           vbbbbb  bnb                                                                                 (OLSC).

 

Further, the justices recorded in their judgment that Ms Odtojan, a client of Mr Nicolas Ford of Edmund Barton Chambers and Mr Thomas Glynn of Glynns Lawyers  is to be blamed and held responsible for the conduct of the said barrister and solicitor on the basis that the client, Ms Odtojan is a solicitor by profession and a principal of OBL. 

​

There is no record of any notice of appearance by OBL or Ms Odtojan filed in the said LCProceedings and any proceedings relating that stem from the LC proceedings.

 

The justices recorded such fact without any evidentiary support and recorded such fact amongst others (listed in <>) in their judgment. 

​

Mr Miles Condon SC provided no evidence under oath nor sworn affidavit, and has not attended any court hearings held in the District Court and the NSW COA in relation to the case made against him.​

 

There is no evidence nor submissions by Mr Condon's counsel in support of the representations made by the Justices in respect to  Mr Condon's services and interaction with Ms Odtojan.

 

The fact recorded by the justices that Mr Condon addressed the issues raised by Ms Odtojan in her letter (a 16 page letter) is unsupported by any evidence.

​

​

Under no circumstances is OBL and Ms Odtojan responsible for her legal representatives conduct who has a professional legal and fiduciary obligation to their client (Ms Odtojan).

 

The allegations raised against Mr Condon SC in this proceedings before the justices pertains to fraudulent  representation of a contract in his appeal advice particualrly an 'unsigned contrat' which he refuses to calrify, identify and produce since 2016 (almost 8 years). further subsequent acts are allged by Mr Condon in the cost assessment process as detailed in Ms Odtojan's <Statement of Claim filed 13 Sept 2022>​

​

​

2. Odtojan Bryl Lawyers has been further referred to in the jdugment of of Justices <>/M.White and <>.Baston in the leave of appeal hearing of Odtojan v Glynn and Odtojan v Ford in the NSW Court of Appeal.

​

​

3. LAWYERS WEEKLY has been on notice of the misinformation and defamatory article they published on <> July 2023 which they have disregarded and excused as fair reporting. They have never attempte to approach us and raises no concen that their article stated in July that mr Ford and Glynns case was unfounded when they are now reporting in Novemeber that the matter was just heard in court.