Evidence File 2
🌍 My Observation: Arbitration Corruption Isn’t Just an Australian Problem
From everything I’ve lived through, researched, and documented on absentjustice.com, I’ve come to a hard truth: what happened in the Australian COT arbitrations is not unique to Australia. The deeper I looked, the clearer it became that arbitration systems across the world are vulnerable to the same patterns of misconduct, secrecy, and manipulation that destroyed any chance of justice in my own case.
🇦🇺 Australia was my battleground — but the pattern is global
My experience showed me how easily an arbitration can be corrupted when:
the defendant is powerful
the regulator is compromised
the arbitrator is influenced
and the claimant is kept in the dark
But as I continued to study international cases, I realised this wasn’t an Australian flaw — it was a systemic weakness in arbitration itself.
🇺🇸 United States
From my observation, the U.S. faces its own serious concerns:
corporations using forced arbitration to avoid accountability
repeat‑player bias, where arbitrators favour the party who hires them regularly
evidence being withheld
decisions made behind closed doors
conflicts of interest that would never be tolerated in a courtroom
Even senior U.S. judges have acknowledged that arbitration can be structurally unfair when one party holds all the power.
🇬🇧 United Kingdom
The UK has had its own scandals involving:
government outsourcing failures
telecom disputes
confidential settlements that hide systemic wrongdoing
The Fujitsu Horizon scandal is a perfect example of how institutions can protect themselves while innocent people are left to suffer — a pattern I recognise all too well.
🇪🇺 Europe
Across Europe, I’ve seen growing concern about:
investor–state arbitration
secret tribunals
corporations using arbitration to pressure governments
rulings made without public scrutiny
Several European nations have already moved to restrict or reform arbitration because of documented abuses.
🔥 Why my COT story matters beyond Australia
The more I examined global arbitration failures, the more I realised that my case wasn’t an isolated injustice — it was a warning.
My story exposes how arbitration can be weaponised when:
evidence is withheld
government reports are concealed
false witness statements are allowed
and the process is controlled by those with the most to lose
This isn’t just an Australian problem.
It’s a worldwide vulnerability.✨ How I now describe it
“What happened in Australia’s COT arbitrations is not an Australian problem — it is a global warning about how easily arbitration can be corrupted when power, secrecy, and government protection collide.”
On 21 April 1993, a dark revelation unfolded just six months after AUSTEL, the government’s own communications authority (now ACMA), probed the unethical treatment endured by me and the other original Casualties of Telstra — Ann Garms, Maureen Gillan, and Graham Schorer. Telstra’s true, sinister nature emerged as we readied our initial arbitration settlement claims, all while the company stubbornly failed to locate or rectify our relentless telephone faults. Instead of taking responsibility, Telstra executives were caught conspiring over internal briefings that painted us as mere obstacles.
“Don, thank you for your swift and eloquent reply. I disagree with raising the issue of the courts. That carries an implied threat not only to COT cases but to all customers that they’ll end up as lawyer fodder. Certainly that can be a message to give face to face with customers and to hold in reserve if the complaints remain vexacious .” GS File 75 Exhibit 1 to 88
The Disclosure That Never Came
On 23 January 1996, Dr Gordon Hughes—my appointed arbitrator—wrote to John Pinnock, the Telecommunications Industry Ombudsman, regarding Laurie James, then President of the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. In that letter, Dr Hughes stated:
“I enclose copy letters dated 18 and 19 January 1996 from the Institute of Arbitrators Australia. I would like to discuss a number of matters which arise from these letters, including:
– the cost of responding to the allegations;
– the implications to the arbitration procedure if I make a full and frank disclosure of the facts to Mr James.”
(File 205 – AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233)
That sentence stopped me cold.
What implications could there possibly be in making a full and frank disclosure—unless the facts themselves were damning? What costs was Dr Hughes weighing, if not the reputational and legal fallout of revealing that the arbitration process had been compromised?
On 15 February 1996, Dr Hughes writes to Mr Pinnock regarding a draft of a letter he proposes to send to the Institute of Arbitrators in response to one of Alan’s complaints. He states:-
“I would appreciate your confirmation that there is nothing in the proposed letter which would embarrass your office or jeopardise the current arbitrations.”
“You may consider it appropriate for you to provide an independent letter of support. This is of course a matter for your discretion.” AS-CAV Exhibit 181 to 233 - See AS-CAV 206
This Wasn’t a Technical Concern. It Was a Moral Crossroads.
Why would Dr Gordon Hughes—a supposedly competent, trustworthy, government-endorsed arbitrator, fully graded by the Institute of Arbitrators Australia—require a letter of support if he had truly conducted my arbitration according to the agreed terms?
If the process had been fair, transparent, and within the ambit promised to the four COT Cases, no such letter would be necessary. Its very existence suggests doubt, defensiveness, and a need to shield against scrutiny. It raises a chilling question: was the letter a preemptive defence against the truth?
This wasn’t about procedure. It was about principle. And the moment Hughes sought validation through back channels, the arbitration ceased to be a legal process—it became a performance, staged to protect reputations and bury accountability.
I had meticulously outlined the procedural flaws and ethical breaches to Laurie James, believing that the Institute of Arbitrators would uphold its standards. But Dr Hughes chose silence. He chose containment. He decided to ignore the ethical obligations that came with his role—obligations to me, to the other claimants, and to the integrity of the arbitration itself.
What sinister and treacherous undercurrents were twisting the process so tightly that even the arbitrator feared disclosure?
Coordinated Deception and Institutional Complicity
In February 1996, John Rundell, then a partner at KPMG and involved in the 1994/1995 arbitrations, created a false letter claiming that Victoria Police intended to interview me about property damage. This fabricated letter was used to prevent Laurie James from addressing my legitimate concerns.
Even more damning, Rundell admitted in that same letter that my accountant, Derek Ryan, was correct: Rundell’s financial report was incomplete. This breach of integrity should have rendered the arbitration findings invalid. Instead, Dr Hughes weaponised Rundell’s false letter in his own communication to Laurie James, further entrenching the deception.
Victoria Police later confirmed I was never a suspect. Barrister Neil Jepson clarified that Brighton CIB’s involvement had been grossly misrepresented. Yet Pinnock failed to hold Rundell accountable and allowed Hughes to use the misleading letter to influence the outcome of the pending arbitration appeal, which the Institute of Arbitrators was considering.
Public Interest and Ongoing Influence
It is deeply troubling that both Dr Hughes and Mr Rundell continue to turn a blind eye to the truth surrounding their decisions. Their deliberate disregard for these serious allegations not only casts a shadow over their credibility but also raises alarming questions about their commitment to transparency and integrity. As they carry on in their influential roles—Dr. Hughes as Principal Legal Representative at Davies Collison Cave's Lawyers and Mr Rundell managing arbitration centres in two major cities—they seem unconcerned by the potential repercussions of their silence. This negligence is concerning and paints a treacherous picture of the ethical landscape in which they operate, leaving the public to wonder what else they might be hiding.
