Features

A Godsend twice over and Louis Voumard, Victoria’s authority on property law

Published

4 years ago

2023/01/15

Excerpted from a Life in the Law by Nimal Wikramanayake

When I took up residence in Equity Chambers I would often visit my friends on the third floor. During my visits, I saw a little old man wearing a crumpled suit and he always had a cigarette hanging out of the corner of his mouth. For a couple of months I would stop and chat to this little old man. I thought he was the caretaker and I felt extremely sorry for him because he looked so lost and lonely. A delightful little friendship slowly built up and whenever I went up to the third floor I would see this little old man pottering around in one of my friends’ rooms.

One day, out of the blue, he looked at me and said, “My boy, I don’t think we’ve been introduced to each other.” I stuck my hand out and said, “I am Nimal Wikramanayake.” With a twinkle in his eye the old man said, “I am Louis Voumard.”

In 1973, property law work and conveyancing were the bread and butter of every solicitor in Victoria before successive governments in their wisdom decided to take conveyancing work away from solicitors and hand it to conveyancers. What an absolute travesty of justice!

Louis Voumard was the leader in the property field and his name was a household word in Australia. He was the son of Swiss migrants who had settled in Shepparton. They ran a milk bar. Their son was born in 1898 and they sent him down to Melbourne to study Law. He had an inauspicious beginning in the legal profession.

In the mid 1930s he had a bright idea. He would write a book on “The Sale of Land” and become an expert in property law. He devoured T Cyprian Williams’ classic work A Treatise On the Law of Vendor and Purchaser of Real Estate in more ways than one. He took large quantities of Cyprian Williams’ book and incorporated it into his work. He called his work Voumard: The Sale of Land in Victoria and it was published in 1939. This work was, I believe, one of the first of its kind in Australia and was soon called “The Bible”

I looked aghast at him and said, “You are Louis Voumard? The great Louis Voumard?”

The little old man smiled, his eyes twinkled and he said, “Yes’ I spluttered. “The great Louis Voumard?”

His eyes twinkled again and he said, “Yes, my boy.”

That was the beginning of a short but magnificent friendship. He was the only one in this great country of ours who gave me a helping hand. Over the next few months I would spend every single afternoon in his room, when I was not, on rare occasions, in court. He was always hard at work. When I walked into his room, he would look up at me with that gentle smile of his and say, “My boy, have you brought your fee with you?” and I would reply, “Can I put it on the slate?” and he would laughingly say, “Yes.”

We would then sit down and discuss art, music, politics and philosophy. This was not only refreshing but stimulating, because my conversation with my Australian barrister friends was limited to Aussie Rules football, which I knew nothing about, and cricket.

Louis was the most unusual man I have ever met. At that time he had a rival, Keith Aiken QC. Voumard never forgot his humble country roots and was known – even though he became a silk later in life and a giant in the legal profession – for the abominably low fees he charged. I have a clear recollection of something that occurred when I was his junior in a matter of advice shortly before he died. I sent a bill of $30 for my fees and the solicitor sent me a cheque for $20, saying that $30 was the fee that Lou had charged in the matter. Lou told me that he charged low fees, firstly because he did not need the money, and secondly, poor people should be ablA Godsend twice over and Louis Voumard, Victoria’s authority on property lawe to have access to his knowledge. At the time of Lou’s death in 1974, Keith Aiken was charging hundreds of dollars for an advice on law matters.

Then the first bombshell struck. Pat Gorman died and we were all in mourning for the great man. “Dashing” Des Whelan QC, who shared chambers with Pat Gorman, took over his magnificent room. Des Whelan was the leader of the Personal Injuries Bar, and later Chief Judge of the County Court. He was the father of a young barrister called Simon Whelan who came to the Bar some years later, took silk, was later appointed to the Supreme Court and later still to the Court of Appeal. Simon is a very gentle man and an exceptionally fine judge.

On August 15, 1973, I received an invitation from Des Whelan to come up to his chambers to celebrate the 75th birthday of Louis Voumard. We all went up to Des Whelan’s room that afternoon to felicitate dear, sweet Louis Voumard. I told Louis, “I know another great man whose birthday fell on August 15 and he replied, “Yes, Napoleon Bonaparte.’ Lou was born 119 years after Napoleon.

Some months later I when chatting with Lou in his room, he looked up and said, “My boy, I understand that you are helping Sonny with his book. Would you like to help me with my work? If you help me with my work you can take it over if anything happens to me. You will be made.” I was delighted and grabbed the opportunity with both hands. I then gave Sonny the sad news that I would not be working on his book but would be helping Lou with his work.

In the meantime Lou gave me a copy of his work. I did not dare tell Lou that I knew nothing about property law. At Cambridge, Property Law I was studied in the second year of the Law Tripos, and Property Law II was studied in the third year. In my second year, I studied International Law in preference to Property Law and in my third year I studied Roman-Dutch law in preference to Property Law as Roman-Dutch law was the law of Ceylon.

In Ceylon, although my master had a large property law practice, I did property law only during the six months that I was reading with him. After that I did not look at a property law brief. So when Lou asked me to help him with his work, I had not seen Contract for the Sale of Land in Victoria. I did not know what a defect of title was nor did I know what requisitions on title were. In fact, I knew nothing about property law.

I opened Lou’s work and could not understand a word of it. But over the next couple of months, I found some new authorities for him and my little friend was delighted. When my parents came out to Australia in December 1973 I invited Lou home to meet them. He drove up in his old Wolseley motor car with his paraplegic daughter, Susan. Susan was the cross Lou had had to bear for over 30 years.She had been a nurse and had been driving to Lou’s holiday home at Mt Martha many years earlier when a drunken driver swerved across the road, smashed her car, smashed her body and destroyed her life.

Noel Rice

It was the month of September 1973 and the barristers on the four big lists had a surfeit of work. Sometimes they had multiple briefs every day. I would spend most of my time twiddling my thumbs and listening to my neighbours ,Paul Bennett, who was on Foley’s list, and Paul McPhee, who was on Spur’s list, discussing the briefs they had and the income they had earned that year. Sad to say, both my dear friends are now dead. Paul Bennett proudly declared that he had earned $16,300 that year and McPhee triumphantly remarked that he had earned $17,000. I totaled up my fees and found that I had earned less than $5,000 for the 11 months of that year.

Then I had a stroke of luck in October 1973 in the shape of John McCartney and Noel Rice, the principal of the firm of Anderson, Rice and Nicol. Noel Rice was the solicitor who acted for the RACV Insurance Company in most of their motor car collision cases or what we commonly called “crash and bash” in the Magistrates’ Court. He was unable to find a barrister and Calnin telephoned me to ask whether I could go down and do a “crash and bash” at St Kilda.

Noel Rice as the RACV solicitor always acted for defendant motorists. In this particular instance he had paid in 80 per cent of the claim into court. This is what is called “a payment into court”. It is open to a defendant in a civil claim for money to pay what he or she thinks is what the complainant/plaintiff will receive by way of judgment. If the successful complainant/plaintiff receives judgment for less than the money paid into court by the defendant’s solicitor, the complainant/plaintiff is required to pay the defendant’s costs incurred in defending the proceeding.

The magistrate Kevin O’Connor took a liking to me and I managed to have my client found 60 per cent negligent and the other party 40 per cent negligent. I beat the payment into court by 20 per cent so the complainant had to pay the costs my client incurred in defending the proceedings. When I returned to chambers I gave Noel Rice the good news and he was delighted.

I heard nothing from him for about two weeks when he rang me up without going through Calnin and briefed me in another “crash and bash” He had paid in his usual 80 per cent and I got him an award of 60 per cent. This result led to a long and fruitful relationship over the next four years. He then started briefing me, first with one brief a week, and then two and soon I was receiving three briefs from him a week.

In December 1973, our happy chamber relationship came to a grinding halt. Patkin, Bennett and McPhee, having signed the Bar Roll in March 1971, were all offered rooms in Owen Dixon Chambers. However, the Victorian Bar had taken the fourth floor of Equity Chambers. I was given the choice of the rooms on the fourth floor so I took a large room looking out on to Bourke Street.

In March 1974 a new list was formed and a number of barristers on the new list – Muir’s – joined me on the fourth floor of Equity Chambers. A young barrister on our floor, Ian Sutherland, was double-booked and offered me a brief in the Magistrates’ Court. I grabbed it with both hands. It was from one of the leading solicitor’s firms in Melbourne – Corrs.

A young solicitor from that firm, Christopher Wren, came along with the client, a ruddy-faced little Jewish man. Yes, his Jewishness is relevant because he was discriminating against me because of my colour. His face was a feature when he saw me. He asked me what I knew about the law. I pointed to my certificate hanging on the wall and told him that I took a Second-Class Honours at Cambridge University and had qualified as a barrister in England in 1959, some 15 years before.

I studied his complaint, which disclosed that his neighbour had bulldozed his boundary wall with a tractor. The claim had been brought in negligence. I told Chris that it would have been preferable if it had been brought in trespass because it was strict liability. He would only have to prove that his neighbour bulldozed his fence, but in negligence he would have to prove a duty of care on the part of the neighbour.

The client started screaming and yelling at me at the top of his voice: “What the hell are you talking about? Trespass, negligence, what the hell does it matter? My fence has been demolished. You are just like my neighbour. You don’t know what you’re doing’

By this time I had had enough. Corrs may be the one of the biggest firms in Melbourne and I needed them. I was only two years at the Bar and no one in his right mind would insult a client of Corrs, but I was not going to put up with this nasty little racist man. I picked up the brief and threw it at him, saying, “Take your brief and bugger off.” I never got another brief from Corrs.

In January, we spent a happy day with Louis Voumard at his holiday home in Mt Martha. I am proud to say that I am one of the few members of the Victorian Bar who has been to Lou’s holiday home in Mt Martha and to his home in Kew. The months then flew by and I remember that fateful day – Thursday, May 2, 1974. We were chatting in his room that afternoon when the evening shadows slowly closed in, and we went on chatting until about seven at night. Lou drew me aside and told me, “My boy, this book is killing me.” He added, “I am very, very tired” We said our goodbyes and he left – and I was never to see him again.

On Friday morning something made me go down to see Lou. I found his room closed with a notice saying that he was ill and that he would not be coming in that day. I telephoned his home and Susan answered the phone. She told me, “Dad walked down to see his doctor in the High Street. He was having a pain in his chest and thought he had better see his doctor about it.” The silly old man had walked a mile to see his doctor when he was obviously having a heart attack.

I went into work on Monday morning and was reading The Age newspaper when the telephone rang. It was my friend Ronny de Kretser. He said, “Nimal, have you seen today’s papers?”

“Yes, but I’ve been reading the sports page”

He told me to turn to page two. I did so, and found there a huge appreciation of the life of the late Mr Louis Voumard who had died the previous Saturday, May 4. I sat there stunned. I was in a state of shock: my whole world had collapsed around me. The only dear friend I had known and would ever know in Australia had died. Who was going to help me? Whom could I turn to? I put the phone down, put my hands on my head and sat there sobbing softly. What was to become of me?

But then, as Benny Hill was wont to say, “The pickled pinger of pate intervened.” During the previous year in Equity Chambers and my close friendship with my dear friend Lou, I had also become very friendly with his secretary, Kathy Scheinman. Dear sweet Kathy was responsible for my second real break at the Victorian Bar, Noel Rice having been the first. She wrote off to the powers-that-be at Law Book Company and told them that a young man had been helping Louis Voumard with his book when he died.

The managing director, Tony Lees, wrote to me and asked whether I could take over writing the work. Tony then flew down to Melbourne, interviewed me and retained me to write “THE BOOK” I was terrified. I knew nothing about the sale of land, let alone land law.

I decided to take a chance and do the work. I telephoned my friend, John Rutherford, who was a solicitor at Cook and Cussen. He came down to see me with a contract for the sale of land and took me through the essential requirements of a contract. He also explained to me the purpose of requisitions on title and spent a couple of hours initiating me in the mysteries of land law.

This is the truth. Well, what was I to do with Voumard? I read Voumard from cover to cover 40 times during the next four years. I remember going to Italy for a holiday in 1977 and I read Voumard going over on the plane once, then read it again coming back on the plane.

The editing of the third edition of this work was in the hands of Sir Alistair Adam. I gave Sir Alistair what I thought were the relevant authorities. My knowledge of property law was non-existent, despite my having read this work so many times. As a result of my lack of knowledge, I omitted to give Sir Alistair the controversial decision of the House of Lords on part performance – The case of Steadman v. Steadman. Ross Sundberg QC reviewed this third edition and crucified my work. I was heartbroken.

(To be continued)

All News Advertisement

Features

America at 250: Most unfitting President, Biggest World Cup Tournament

Published

22 hours ago

2026/07/19

Thilina Walpola

Messi and Yamal to face each other in Sunday’s World Cup Final

The world’s oldest constitutional democracy turned 250 on the Fourth of July, two weeks ago. It is a rather quirky coincidence that in the 250^th year of its largely successful existence, America should be having as its president the most unfitting person in history, and that in keeping with the American trait for mixing serious purposes with fun and play, it should also be hosting perhaps the largest edition of the World Cup Football Tournament. The triple coincidence – the anniversary, Trump presidency and the World Cup – is not without some meaning.

The essence of the Trump presidency has been to recast America in the mould of Trump’s own vulgar and outlandish presuppositions about who belongs in America and what the rest of the world owes to America. Internal exclusions and external isolation have always been a part of American history, but Trump’s project has been to make them America’s sole and permanent purpose. Make America great again by making it more intolerant and more imperfect, as opposed to pursuing the country’s founding purpose of striving towards a “more perfect union.”

Trump is also giving a new meaning to America’s exceptional isolationism by slashing immigration, deporting American residents whom he and his Maga cabal don’t like for the vilest of reasons, withdrawing from global agencies that America created and closing down American agencies providing global services, imposing tariffs on every country and deeming them as payment for America’s past generosity under weak presidents, and threatening neighbours with annexation while militarily attacking others.

2007: Lionel Messi holding baby Lamine Yamal

He got his nose bloodied after listening to Netanyahu and starting a fight with Iran, made a fool of himself by first announcing that he will provide safe passage to ships through the Strait of Hormuz and charge them 20% of their cargo value, and immediately withdrawing it after being told that it was a lamebrained and impractical idea. The Iranian Foreign Minister tweeted that it is a good approach but 20% is too high! The reality is that Iran has effectively closed the strait again, after Trump said his ceasefire with Iran is over, and there is nothing the might of America can do about it – thanks solely to Trump.

The world, not to mention America, are back to where it was soon after February 28. And Trump is back to February 28, with more attacks on Iran while telling Israel to keep out of it and hoping that Iran will soon come to the table. The Iranian regime is insisting that it is Trump and not Iran who will have to blink first again. For the rest of the world and the people of America, fuel and fertilizer prices are again rising along with the prices of goods and services that depend on them.

Meanwhile, the Fourth of July marking America’s 250^th Anniversary of American independence has come and gone. Every year, Americans cheer and celebrate the Fourth of July as a civic festival in their local communities. Families take their children to Washington, Philadelphia, Gettysburg and other historical sites to learn and appreciate their history. The state hardly gets involved and there are no military parades or flights of fighter jets. Trump changed it last year by holding a military parade in Washington but it did not excite anyone. The army had to go to extraordinary lengths to protect the city roads from cracking up while parading its massive tanks. This year Trump’s efforts to turn the 250^th anniversary celebration into a personal vanity affair spectacularly backfired and what was becoming a national damp squib. Not so ironically, it was rescued by the 2026 World Cup tournament that began on Thursday, June 11 and will end on Sunday, July 19.

World Cup Down to the Wire

The 23^rd FIFA World Cup hosted by America, Mexico and Canada with matches played in 16 cities – 11 in the US, three in Mexico and two in Canada – became a significant occasion for the US. It provided an antidote to Trump’s vain and unsuccessful usurpation of the country’s 250^th anniversary, even as it became an occasion to show the world that there is still much more likeable about America in spite of all the ugly MAGA makeover that Trump has been giving it from the White House.

What is unique about America is that it is the first and the only immigrant country to become a superpower in world history. An open door country with a melting pot ethos, America has consistently struggled at every stage of its evolution to defy the homogeneity of the privileged, and to celebrate across-the-board heterogeneity in every aspect of the human condition. If the purpose of Trump’s presidency has been to break this arc of American history, the World Cup became an occasion to demonstrate that the arc will continue in spite of Trump.

The World Cup was an eye opener to both resident Americans and visiting football worshippers. Except for the Olympics sporting events, competitive sports in America are dominated by (American) Football, Baseball, Basketball and (Ice) Hockey, and the competitions are all limited to American teams along with some Canadian teams especially in Hockey. The extent of any international connection is limited to allowing players from Central America and Japan for Baseball, and from Canada and Eastern Europe for Hockey. In other words, American notions of exclusivity and self-sufficiency seamlessly extend to the world of sports from the universe of politics and economics.

The arrival of the World Cup, 32 years after America hosted its first and only World Cup in 1994, was an eye opener to American sports fans and the general public. This was international sports at their doorstep and an occasion to live through the experience of witnessing the world’s best exponents of the game fiercely displaying their talents in friendly competitions. The visiting fans who thronged the games brought life and diversity and retail spin offs to the cities where the games were played. The visitors to a person, both players and fans, were enthralled by the magnificence of America’s sporting facilities and the range of amusement and entertainment the host cities offered.

The tournament also became a smorgasbord of different nationalisms from around the world but manifesting pride and passion in support of national football teams and not boastful belligerence about national militaries. The teams were also more equal on the pitch than their governments are at the UN podium. The better teams of the day won in the end but every team made each game as competitive as it could. Small countries from West Asia, Africa and little Atlantic islands went boot-to-boot with European and South American giants and kept everyone guessing until the final whistle. The really big Asian countries – China, India, Indonesia etc. – could not qualify for admission, while Asia’s two industrial giants – Japan and South Korea – acquitted themselves well even though they were unlucky not to go beyond the group stage.

The team that America fielded should not have been allowed to represent the country based on Trump’s executive negation of all DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) programs in government and in federal hiring. But it did and the US team would have made the 1960s promoters of cross-racial ‘rainbow’ alliances proud. Similar rainbow teams have become the norm of almost all West European countries and England.

Players of colour have become superstars in western football teams and have quite clearly internalized natal nationalism as opposed to being assimilated by them. They are all descendants of birthright citizens of the old empires, a legal tradition that is more universal and anterior to the abolition of slavery and the 14^th Amendment in the US, as Chief Justice John Roberts reminded the Trump Administration in overturning its executive order to end the recognition of birthright citizenship in America. A practice that is shared by three dozen countries.

The US Team at the World Cup began as a promising outfit playing with flair and freewheeling style and could have gone as far as the Quarter Finals to play Spain. The team was undone prematurely by Trump’s sleazy intervention with FIFA bosses to suspend the Red Card penalty ban of a US player, Folarin Balogun, for a foul he had committed in an earlier match. Trump’s role and the penalty suspension created a public uproar and in the upshot an inspired Belgium trounced the US whose players performed very poorly perhaps under the weight of the embarrassment that their President had inflicted on them.

The World Cup tournament itself is now down to the final match, the 104^th of the tournament, on Sunday, July 19^th, between the reigning World Cup champions, Argentina, and Spain, the current Euro Cup holders. The match for the Third Place will be played on Saturday (July 18), between France who lost 0-2 to Spain in a surprisingly one-sided game, and England who went down in a heartbreaking 1-2 defeat to Argentina after leading 1-0 up till five minutes before the final whistle.

The French were the tournament’s cracking team till they came up against Spain who had been belabouring until then. The English team had bestirred all of England back home with their gritty win against Mexico in its national stadium full of 85,000 spectators, but once again came up short in the penultimate game.

The final between Argentina and Spain will feature the 39 year old Argentinian maestro, Lionel Messi, looking to win his second World Cup, and the 19 year old Spanish prodigy, Lamine Yamal. The football internet is abuzz with a 2007 photograph showing then 20 year old Messi carrying Yamal as an infant during a photo session in Barcelona, Spain, where Messi played club football. On Sunday, in New York/New Jersey, they will face each other in a spirited encounter for the biggest prize in sports.

by Rajan Philips

Features

Two memorable excerpts from a former SLAF commander’s memoir

Published

22 hours ago

2026/07/19

Thilina Walpola

Prime Minister Magaret Thatcher at opening of the Victoria dam. President Jayewardene, Mahaweli Minister Gamini Dissanayake and Finance Minister Ronnie de Mel are also in the picture

These two excerpts from the forthcoming book, To Survive As One Nation, One People by Air Chief Marshal Oliver Ranasinghe. A Retired Commander of the Sri Lanka Airforce makes interesting reading. The first is of a sudden demand on the SLAF for emergency air support for the besieged Jaffna Fort when the only available helicopters were being prepared for a VVIP flight for UK PM Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Mark.

The second deals with ferying PM Rajiv Gandhi and his wife Sonia to Katunayake after a naval rating had hit Gandhi with a rifle butt.

In April 1985, the UK’s first female prime minister visited Sri Lanka to ceremonially declare open the Victoria Dam and Power Station built with aid under the patronage of Queen Elizabeth II. The completion of the project was a significant milestone for the Accelerated Mahaweli Development Programme, with the power station having an installed capacity of 210 MW. Two helicopters were stationed at Air Force Headquarters premises to fly the VVIPs at 6:30 a.m. on 12 April to Victoria Dam. I was Commanding Officer of the Helicopter Wing and assigned to fly Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband.

However, at around noon on the day before the flight, I got a desperate call from the Joint Operations Command (JOC) requesting that 250 troops be airlifted to the Jaffna Fort immediately, since “hot intelligence” had informed that the enemy had planned to attack the fort that night.

I did not have any helis in the Wing as all had been deployed throughout the North and East. The only other two serviceable helis were in the VVIP security cordon, standing by to fly Prime Minister Thatcher and the other VVIPs the next morning. According to VVIP flying procedures, the helis are kept for 48 hours before the flight within a security cordon which is well-guarded by guards and air dogs. No one is allowed to go witin the security cordon without the Commanding Officer’s approval.

I had to take a quick decision about whether to drop the troops using the two helis from the cordon and run the risk of having no heli to fly Prime Minister Thatcher the next morning. The alternative was to say “No,” to the Army and take the risk of losing hundreds of soldiers at the front, facing a humiliating defeat, loss of prestige, morale and losing the Jaffna Fort, which was the Army’s pride.

If the latter happened, our conscience would be inconsolable even today. When we were fighting the battle, we were one unit: Army, Navy, Air Force and Police. The Air Force was always there. We never said no. So, I took the decision to fly immediately to Jaffna to carry out the task using the two VVIP helis. I was taking a huge risk, jeopardizing my career in the Air Force, by disregarding the standing orders and removing the two helis from the VVIP cordon.

By 1:00 p.m., we took off from Katunayake for Jaffna, using the two VVIP helis without Air Force Headquarters approval. I was captaining one heli with Flight Lieutenant Lasantha Waidyaratne as my co-pilot. (He was the pilot who, a long time later on, landed a heli at Jaffna Fort in the impossible task code-named Operation Eagle.) Flight Lieutenant Tennyson Gunawardena was flying the other heli as captain. I had to fly as we did not have any pilots to spare.

From the Palaly airport, we flew with twenty-two passengers without seats, keeping within the maximum all-up weight, and headed into the Jaffna Fort, approaching with the wind and not headwind as usual, avoiding enemy guns.

By 5:30 p.m., Tennyson called me on the receiver transmitter unit and said, “Sir, it is raining heavily in Katunayake, and we have to go in bad weather in the night back to Katunayake. So can I leave now?” I said, “Okay,” and ensured the heli was made ready for the VVIP the next morning. In the meantime, I kept flying the balance troops.

I did not get down at all from the heli and refuelling, too, was done whilst I was sitting in the pilot’s seat. The Brigadier-in-Charge in Jaffna came up to the heli very late in the evening and told me that, if I couldn’t drop all troops that night, to do the balance first thing in the morning. I said, “No, I will drop all tonight as I have to fly back to Katunayake for a very important task.”

We dropped all 250 troops into the Jaffna Fort and, after refuelling at Palaly, left at around 10:00 p.m. to fly back to Katunayake. However, we got caught to heavy rain on the stretch from North of Mannar to Katunayake. The weather was so bad that we had to request radar assistance to steer to Katunayake. However, I decided to disregard radar advice and told my co-pilot to follow the coastline, just to be clear of obstacles such as high-tension wires. Helicopters do not fly in rainy weather, let alone bad weather, and definitely not at night, but we had no choice.

Lasantha, my co-pilot, swears that he has not done a bad weather flight of that nature, either before or since, in his flying career. In fact, he says that he matured as a pilot during the last hours of that flight!

At around midnight, we landed at Katunayake where the crew was ready to take the heli and clean it to VVIP standard, which they did throughout the night. I was relieved and happy that I could return to Katunayake the same night.

The next morning, we positioned the two helis by 6:30 a.m. at Air Force Headquarters premises to fly the VVIP. Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and her husband, Mr.Denis Thatcher, had a safe and comfortable flight to Victoria and back. In fact, Mrs.Thatcher was fast asleep when we touched down in Colombo!

As the Commanding Officer of the No.4 Helicopter Squadron, I risked my life and career because I did not want the Jaffna Fort to fall into the enemy’s hands and lose Army lives. Also, I did not want to let down the VVIP and spoil the image of the Sri Lanka Air Force. If anything had gone wrong, obviously I would have been “thrown” in the sea. I believe such life and death situations reveal the inborn/emerging leadership potential of individuals.

This excerpt deals with flying Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi and his wife, Sonia, to Katunayake after a naval rating on ab honour guard struck Gandhi with rifle butt.

In July 1987, I was out of the Helicopter Squadron and serving as Base Commander—Anuradhapura. The Commander of the Air Force called me one day and asked me whether I was still current on helis, and I said, “Yes.” He said, “I am sending a Bell 214 for you to do some flying training.” The next day, the heli arrived at Anuradhapura, and I got back into swing doing some flying training.

After two days, I was told to come to Katunayake to do a flight. I was told that I had to fly the visiting Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Gandhi, from the Bandaranaike International Airport (BIA) to Galle Face and back. He was coming to sign the much-talked about “peace accord.” The Indian Prime Minister arrived at the BIA, and he was ferried to the Galle Face green, from where he was taken in a motorcade to President’s House to sign the Indo-Lanka Peace Accord.

Without taking much time, the motorcade returned to the Galle Face green. There was no panic. Rajiv Gandhi was smiling, but Sonia Gandhi helped Rajiv get in first, to the inner seat of the helicopter, and Sonia sat next to the window. If not for that, everything was normal.

I started up, switched on the VHF radio and contacted the Air Force Operations Room for take-off clearance. They told me that at the Navy’s Guard of Honour parade, there had been an incident targeting Rajiv Gandhi. That played havoc in my mind. I had to think that whoever planned and failed would have a “plan B,” and that would be to target the helicopter. Then I realized that, if so, both Rajiv Gandhi’s life and mine would be destroyed by “plan B.” That was my thinking. I had to save this VVIP, our state visitor. To do that, I had to make decisions on my own.

There was no one to tell me what to do. So, I took off in the most unexpected direction and avoided the usual route and followed a different route to BIA, whilst all the time being alert. Coming over BIA, I disregarded the usual approach procedure to the surprise of the Air Traffic Controllers and approached from the wrong direction and landed, but not in the designated landing place, to avoid a possible sniper or RPG attack.

The VVIP got off and walked away to the awaiting Indian Air Force aircraft. That relieved me of the tension of delivering the “precious cargo” in one piece.

(The book is distributed by the Vijitha Yapa Bookshop)

Business

‘Giving up was never an option’: The fisherman who fought back after losing millions in SL

Published

22 hours ago

2026/07/19

Thilina Walpola

Seamax factory at Dickowita Harbour

Spanish Israeli entrepreneur Simon Max Astandoust, a fourth-generation member of the renowned Astan fishing family, has endured years of legal battles, business setbacks and the loss of millions of dollars after investing in Sri Lanka’s fishing industry. Yet, despite the challenges, he has chosen to stay and rebuild.

In an interview with the Sunday Island, the founder and CEO of Seamax Ceylon (Pvt) Ltd speaks about his struggle, the restoration of his state-of-the-art factory vessel Astan II, and his plans to introduce cutting-edge seafood technology to Sri Lanka.

Q: You began operations in Sri Lanka in 2018. What was your original vision and investment?

A: We started operations in 2018 with an initial investment of around US$1 million. Over time, that investment grew into several million dollars because we believed Sri Lanka had enormous potential in the fishing industry.

My original intention was to develop a project through the Board of Investment (BOI) and introduce new technology to the country. However, the Government at the time encouraged us to work directly with it instead. We believed that this partnership would help us move forward faster and create something unique for Sri Lanka.

Overhauled Astan II

Our goal was to operate within the harbour and establish a modern fishing operation centred around advanced technology and sustainable seafood processing.

Q: What challenges did you face after starting operations?

A: Around eight to 18 months after we began our investment, COVID-19 hit. The pandemic created enormous difficulties. In countries such as Spain and the United States, governments provided financial support to help businesses survive. Here, the Government itself was facing a difficult economic situation and was unable to provide similar assistance.

Initially, we were told that there would be a grace period and that we would not be pressured for payments as long as we maintained our workforce and kept the operation alive. But later, that understanding changed, and demands for payments began despite the fact that we had a 15-year agreement.

That was the beginning of the major conflict.

Q: How did the change of Government affect your operations?

A: When a new Government came into power, the 15-year agreement signed with the previous administration was not recognized. The factory was closed and legal action was initiated against us.

This was extremely difficult because we had invested heavily based on a long-term agreement. We had built infrastructure, brought in technology and created employment opportunities.

During this period, while the vessel was caught up in legal disputes, a group of people attempted to take control of the ship. One of the most painful experiences was that some lawyers who had been working for us changed sides and supported those attempting to take the vessel.

Simon Max Astandoust

The legal battle continued for years and only concluded in 2025.

Q: Your vessel, Astan II, is central to your investment. What happened to it during this period?

A: Astan II is not just a fishing vessel. It is a huge factory vessel with a complete processing facility inside. It was designed to bring a completely new level of technology to Sri Lanka’s fishing industry.

Unfortunately, because it remained idle during the legal proceedings, it suffered significant damage. Ships cannot simply sit in a harbour for months or years without proper operation and maintenance. The Sri Lankan weather conditions are particularly harsh on vessels.

The vessel deteriorated badly, but after we regained control, we decided to completely restore it. It was overhauled.

Q: How much did the restoration cost and what work was involved?

A: The restoration cost approximately US$1.5 million and took about one year, beginning in 2025. The vessel was almost a complete rebuild. One of the biggest technical challenges was repairing the three generators. Because the harbour did not provide electricity, these generators had been running continuously to maintain the vessel. Over time, this caused significant wear and tear.

Finding replacement parts was another major challenge. Many of these parts are not imported into Sri Lanka, so every component had to be sourced from different countries and brought in individually.

A team of around 14 to 20 people worked on the restoration, including a Sri Lankan chief engineer and local professional deck crew. Their expertise and dedication were extremely important.

Today, the vessel is in brand-new condition.

Q: You mentioned that the absence of diplomatic representation made your struggle more difficult. Why?

A: I hold Spanish and Israeli citizenship, and neither Spain nor Israel has an embassy in Sri Lanka. Normally, when a foreign investor faces serious difficulties, an ambassador can engage with authorities and help protect the investor’s interests.

In my case, I had to face everything alone. I had to deal directly with government institutions and the legal system through my lawyers. Having diplomatic support would have made a significant difference. But ultimately, I had to rely on the courts and the legal process.

Fortunately, the maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored some of my confidence.

Q: Your vessel uses unique -70°C “Ultra-Fresh” technology. Can you explain how it works?

A: This is one of the most exciting parts of our project. The technology comes from Japan and is only about two years old. Traditional freezing methods often affect the quality of fish because the freezing process is slower and damages the texture. This technology works differently. It uses a glazing process where the fish is frozen from the outside, creating a protective layer.

Within approximately two hours, the fish is completely frozen. This process eliminates bacteria and preserves the quality of the fish.

When the fish is later defrosted using the correct method, it is almost exactly like fresh-caught fish from the ocean. The taste, texture and quality are preserved. At present, nobody else in Sri Lanka is carrying out this type of ultra-fresh freezing technology onboard a fishing vessel.

Q: What advantage will this technology give Sri Lanka?

A: Sri Lanka has excellent fishing resources, but we need to move beyond simply catching fish. The future is about value addition, quality control and accessing premium international markets.

With this technology, Sri Lanka can export seafood at a much higher value because customers will receive a product that maintains the quality of freshly caught fish.

This is not just about one company. It is about introducing a new concept to the country’s fishing industry.

Q: After everything you have experienced, why did you decide to continue investing in Sri Lanka?

A: I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen are not people who give up easily. The sea teaches you resilience. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue. Of course, there were moments when I lost faith. Losing millions of dollars and spending years in court is not easy for anyone.

But eventually, the justice system gave me confidence again. The maritime judges understood the situation and treated the case fairly. That showed me that there are people in Sri Lanka who understand the importance of protecting investment and respecting the law. That is why I decided to continue.

Many people told me that, despite the difficulties, the Sri Lankan judiciary would ultimately deliver justice. At the time, after years of uncertainty, it was difficult to know what the outcome would be. But in the end, that is exactly what happened. The courts examined the facts and delivered a fair judgment.

The maritime judges understood the complexity of the situation and the importance of maritime law. Their fair approach restored my confidence—not only in the legal system but also in Sri Lanka itself.

Q: What are your future plans for Seamax Ceylon?

A: Our plan is to expand significantly. We intend to bring two or three more large factory vessels to Sri Lanka, along with five local fishing vessels. We also plan to establish a new processing factory near the beach. However, this time we will work through the Board of Investment rather than entering into a direct agreement with the Government.

The BOI provides a structured framework for investors, and we believe this is the right way forward. My son Sam, who is the CEO of our US-based company, will also return to Sri Lanka to help introduce successful business concepts and support the next stage of development.

Q: What keeps you motivated after such a difficult journey?

A:The answer is simple: we do not give up. I come from a family of fishermen. This is my fourth generation, and my son represents the fifth generation. Fishermen understand struggle. You cannot control the ocean, but you learn how to survive. You face storms, difficulties and uncertainty, but you continue moving forward.

I have lost money, faced difficult times and experienced moments of disappointment. But I never stopped believing in the potential of Sri Lanka. One thing that gave me strength was the faith many people placed in the country’s judiciary. I was repeatedly told that the courts in Sri Lanka would deliver justice, and ultimately that belief was proven right. The maritime judges understood the situation and gave a fair decision based on the law.

That experience reminded me that, despite challenges, Sri Lanka has institutions and people who respect justice. That is why I decided not only to stay but also to invest again.

For me, this is not merely a business project. It is about resilience, trust and proving that when you believe in something, you continue fighting until you succeed.

by Saman Indrajith ✍️