What The F***

[saintal]

5AA newsreader

painful

Tredders where are you

Terrible yep. You do wonder how some people land in these jobs.

A few on SEN are equally grating.

[Spargo]

A few on SEN are equally grating.

Vanessa Gibson, her voice could strip paint.

[Brodlach]

5AA newsreader

painful

Tredders where are you

Terrible yep. You do wonder how some people land in these jobs.

A few on SEN are equally grating.

I wondered if she was Bob Francis’ grand daughter

[Jimmy_041]

I'm not sure where this fits so I will put it here.
This Court case has been going for a while and has been eagerly followed by the legal profession and others that know (either of) these two people.
Some BIG money involved. A bloke named after a Roman General v a Greek hiding stuff (who would have thought!)

Federal Court rules SA lawyer Scipio ‘Skip’ Lipman entitled to multimillion-dollar lawsuit payout over ex-business partner Jason Karas’ 'dishonest' global firm plot
One of SA’s top lawyers has been ordered to pay more than $56m to his ex business partner and old firm after a judge found he tried to secretly go global.

Charlie Dadds
Court Reporter
27th Noveember 2025

One of the state’s most successful lawyers is entitled to tens of millions of dollars in compensation after his ex-business partner engaged in a “fraudulent design” to secretly launch a global firm, the Federal Court has ruled.

Lipman Karas – now LK Law – co-founder Scipio John “Skip” Lipman, 69, launched action against ex-partner Jason Demetrios Karas, 54, over allegations Mr Karas failed to disclose a new venture with a UK firm, Mishcon de Reya.

Mr Lipman had accused Mr Karas of misrepresentation, misleading and deceptive conduct and breaches of various duties.

On Wednesday, Justice Patrick O’Sullivan found Mr Karas owed “equitable compensation” of $27.5m to LK Law, and $13.75m to Mr Lipman. He also ruled LK Law was entitled to an account of profits in the sum of $15.6m, “representing the value of the benefit MdR received”.

“LK Law was incorporated in Adelaide by both Mr Lipman and Mr Karas in 2004 following their resignation as equity partners from Fisher Jefferies,” Justice O’Sullivan said. “From in or about 2008, the firm sought to expand into Hong Kong.

“Mr Karas became the principal of a local practice in Hong Kong – Karas Lawyers – whilst both he and Mr Lipman remained directors of LK Law. LK Law established a branch office in Hong Kong practising only foreign law (the Foreign Firm).

“As from 2009, a strategic plan was formulated ... (that) envisioned the eventual integration of both Karas Lawyers (LKHK) and the Foreign Firm.”

The court heard that, as of 2012, the two firms “integrated” – with LKHK operating as a branch office of LK Law. By 2018 the relationship between Mr Karas and Mr Lipman had begun to “deteriorate” over an issue of admitting new equity participants into the firm.

Communications between Mr Karas and his personal advisers in 2020 revealed he had adopted a strategy for the separation of his business interests from Mr Lipman, “with the intention being that he would emerge from his business relationship with Mr Lipman as the sole legal and beneficial owner”.

That strategy, the court heard, was “kept to himself”.

“On May 25, 2021, Mr Karas and Mr Lipman signed a Separation Agreement ... to formally divide their business interests with effect from June 1, 2021,” Justice O’Sullivan said.

“An attempt by MdR and Mr Karas to vary the commencement date of the Framework Agreement to June 1, 2021, after it had already commenced, was ineffective.

“At all times, Mr Karas concealed his dealings with MdR. Those negotiations included that Mr Karas would transition LK Law’s Hong Kong revenue stream to MdR.

“By concealing his conduct from Mr Lipman and LK Law, they were denied the opportunity to protect or otherwise deal with the assets with which Mr Karas was dealing, in clear conflict with his fiduciary duties and for his personal benefit.”

On Wednesday, Justice O’Sullivan said that, had Mr Lipman known of Mr Karas’ dealings with MdR, “I entertain no doubt whatsoever that Mr Lipman would not have entered into the Separation Agreement on its terms”.

“This was no minor or inadvertent breach of fiduciary duties,” he said. “I have found that Mr Karas breached his fiduciary duties to LK Law as trustee, alternatively as agent, or alternatively as a director. Further, I have found that Mr Karas’ conduct breached his fiduciary duties to Mr Lipman as partner in an overarching partnership.

“I have found that by failing to disclose his dealings with MdR, Mr Karas engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive. As to MdR, there is no doubt Mr Karas engaged in a dishonest and fraudulent design.”

The matter will return to court for costs.