Peter O’Callaghan interview 22 July 2009

When I was first coming to the Bar, the rage about accommodation was whether there would be built a home for all the barristers at the Bar, and that was the contemplation because they were living in very, very compressed chambers at Saxon House, Eagle Star and so on. So there was a big debate, and this is in the time when I was a clerk at McGuinness’s, and the fight really was between Equity Chambers and those who were sponsoring what became Owen Dixon East. And it impaired and perhaps terminated some friendships. Whether from Equity there would come all, and they didn’t, about a half of them stayed. But Owen Dixon East was built, and in 1961 it was opened, and then three years later another four floors were put on it. There was then a succession of stop-gap proposals for further accommodation, because of the escalating population of the Bar. And all that was done, with the one exception of Seabrook Chambers, was done by the Bar providing chambers. And then we come to 1979, and there was a great debate as to whether we should buy the ABC site. And at that time I had become chairman of a committee was named variously, but we’ll call it the Accommodation Committee. And we had a special general meeting as to whether the Bar would acquire the ABC site with the view to constructing a building on it. And that was quite overwhelmingly passed, I think there was seven dissident. So thereafter there was then the picking of how you would construct the building in which we are now sitting. And ultimately, because the Bar whilst they were asked for another 2,000 debentures, but essentially the Bar said ‘we are not paying any money’, and the way this building was constructed was to have Schroeder’s fund Leighton’s, to build this building, on the basis of lease back and so on, and such that at that stage we, BCL remained the title holder, and at the end of 40 years we would have had the option to buy or the option for a further lease. Now because we in 1990 we hit the ratchet clause problems, and under the great skill and persuasion of Alan Myers, we negotiated an agreement which resulted in the title going to Schroeder’s. But the fact is that this building has housed, and continues to house a great number of barristers. Now in 1984, having signed the contracts with Schroeder’s, a group of barristers called for a special general meeting to abolish Rule 34. Rule 34 was the requirement that barristers would occupy chambers, owned or leased by Barristers Chambers Limited. That was the last general meeting in which that issue was considered, and it was quite overwhelmingly, or by a very significant majority, confirmed. Now somewhere along the line, in ways which are mysterious to me, there was introduced into legislation that that requirement was abolished. And that’s in my view, the worst thing that’s happened to the Victorian Bar, and it’s manifested now, and I don’t say this critically of those who have put up independent chambers, or want to put up independent chambers, because if there’s a buck to be made, you can’t stop them. But if the situation had remained as it was, I would be confident that we would be in a much better position than what is presently proposed as a forthcoming special general meeting, about the change of, for instance the allocation of seniority in chambers. And that’s going to happen. And the problem about that is that there has of course been a great decline in the number of barristers occupying BCL chambers, but without being anything other than I hope objective, the idea that we’re going to have a series of groups, will in my view produce a myriad of Guthrie Featherstones, and I think it’s a sad day if that occurs. But however, that’s for a meeting to be coming shortly.

An edited version of an interview conducted for the Victorian Bar oral history project by Juliette Brodsky, filmed by Stewart Carter at Owen Dixon Chambers and edited by David Broder.