You wouldn't have wanted to be the lawyer for the Commonwealth of Australia in Court 19E of the Federal Court of Australia on Thursday afternoon.
As the hearing in the dispute between the Commonwealth (in the shape of the National Capital Authority) and the government of Russia (in the shape of the embassy in Canberra) developed, Justice Steven Rares became more and more unhappy about what he saw as the lack of information from the authority.
Worse than unhappy.
He could barely contain his exasperation.
In fact, he didn't contain his exasperation: "That's completely unsatisfactory," the judge said to the authority's lawyer, Robert Hay KC.
"This is just not the way to run this," he said. "You wouldn't see it in a magistrates court."
"Ridiculous," he responded at one point, punctuating his exasperation at the authority with sighs and much head shaking.
"An absolute disgrace," was what the judge called the authority's response to the Russian claims that the sudden termination of its lease on the new embassy site in Yarralumla was a breach of the contract. "Embarrassing," he said.
The hearing was meant to be routine - a case management session where lawyers for the two sides and the judge agreed on what was not in dispute between them and what was. It was meant to be a preliminary to smooth the way for the main hearing in order to minimise the cost to the taxpayer.
But it turned into a roasting for the preparation of the case made by the authority.
Or rather, lack of preparation, as the judge saw it.
The Russian side had put in a document detailing numerous meetings with the authority in the 14 years during which the saga of the embassy has played out.
But the response from the authority did not detail what happened at those meetings. In the judge's view it had no adequate alternative version of them.
At one stage, Justice Rares accused the authority side of "obfuscating, and not the sort of conduct one would [expect] in a case of this nature".
"The Commonwealth has not complied with its obligation to narrow the issues," he said.
"You can't run the case like this. We have to know what the issues are," he told the authority lawyer. "Why am I being faced with a pleading like this?"
The judge was particularly vexed by the absence of detail in the authority's account of meetings. "The Commonwealth doesn't know or can't admit what occurred at the meeting," the judge said. He called that "an absurd pleading".
The judge got the bit between his teeth and sought the detail of the exact laws that the authority said the Russian embassy had breached. "You've said they've breached the law, so what are they?"
Mr Hay for the authority responded: "I haven't been told the precise law."
The judge said: "That's completely unsatisfactory."
The hearing was adjourned until December 6 so that the authority could go away and come back with an "amended defence".
"We've just wasted the court's time," Justice Rares concluded, ordering that the authority - the taxpayer - pay the costs.
