Beling v Legal Services Commissioner

Link copied
Case Copied 48 min read
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA Not Restricted

AT MELBOURNE

COMMON LAW DIVISION

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS LIST

S CI 2014 06088

JOEL LORENSZ BELING Plaintiff
v  
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER Defendant

---

JUDGE:

DERHAM AsJ

WHERE HELD:

Melbourne

DATE OF HEARING:

3 March 2015

DATE OF JUDGMENT:

22 April 2016

CASE MAY BE CITED AS:

Beling v Legal Services Commissioner

MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:

[2016] VSC 180

---

JUDICIAL REVIEW AND APPEALS – Order 56 – Application for orders in the nature of mandamus and prohibition by solicitor being investigated by the defendant under Part 4.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2004 – Whether application for orders in the nature of mandamus and prohibition available against the defendant on the facts – Orders not available.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by defendant for summary judgment under r 23.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 or pursuant to the inherent jurisdiction of the Court – Application Granted.

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application by plaintiff for leave to discontinue the proceeding under r 25.03 on the basis that the defendant’s actions have rendered the proceeding useless – Application for the defendant to pay plaintiff’s costs on discontinuance – Operation of r 63.15 of the Rules – Application refused.

---

APPEARANCES:

Counsel Solicitors
The Plaintiff appeared in person
For the Defendant Ms L Kirwan of Counsel Ms Tina Stagliano, Solicitor of the Legal Services Commissioner’s Office

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction......................................................................................................................................... 1

Background......................................................................................................................................... 1

The Originating Motion............................................................................................................... 6

The Plaintiff’s Affidavits.............................................................................................................. 7

Applicable law.................................................................................................................................. 10

Judicial Review Under Order 56 ‑ Certiorari, Prohibition and Mandamus....................... 10

The relevant provisions of the Legal Profession Act............................................................. 12

Principles Relevant to the Summary Judgment Application............................................... 14

Discontinuance............................................................................................................................ 16

Summary Dismissal ‑ Submissions and Consideration........................................................... 19

Mandamus................................................................................................................................... 20

The Submissions Ground................................................................................................. 20

The Banks and Money Ground................................................................................................. 21

The Further Amended Statement of Claim Ground.............................................................. 22

The Legal Basis of the Charges Ground.................................................................................. 22

The Compliments Ground......................................................................................................... 22

The Failure of the Complainants to Raise Concerns Ground.............................................. 23

The Attempts to Renegotiate the Retainer Ground............................................................... 23

The Complainants Unreliability and Medical Condition Grounds.................................... 24

The Inconsistent Advice Ground.............................................................................................. 24

The Discovery Grounds............................................................................................................. 24

Abuse of Power Grounds.......................................................................................................... 25

Prohibition Grounds................................................................................................................... 26

The Questions Sought to be Answered................................................................................... 27

Discontinuance ‑ Submissions and Consideration................................................................... 28

Conclusion......................................................................................................................................... 32

HIS HONOUR:

Introduction

  1. The defendant applies by summons filed on 20 February 2015 to dismiss the proceeding under:

(a) rule 23.01 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (‘Rules’);

(b) sections 62 and 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2010 (Vic) (‘the CPA’); or

(c)        the inherent jurisdiction of the Court.

  1. The plaintiff, on the other hand, applies for leave to discontinue the proceeding.  The plaintiff purported to apply for leave to discontinue the proceedings by filing a Notice of Motion on 26 February 2015.  In that Notice he also applies for the costs of the proceeding against the Commissioner.

  1. It is clear therefore that…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Beling v Legal Services Commissioner and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2016] VSC 180
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Beling v Legal Services Commissioner, the applicant sought judicial review of decisions made by the Legal Services Commissioner in relation to an investigation into the applicant’s conduct as a solicitor. The primary dispute involved the availability of orders in the nature of mandamus and prohibition against the Commissioner, and whether the application was appropriately dismissed. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of Victoria.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the applicant was entitled to seek orders in the nature of mandamus and prohibition against the Commissioner, and if the Commissioner’s application for summary judgment or inherent jurisdiction was appropriately granted. Additionally, the court needed to determine if the plaintiff's application to discontinue the proceeding and for costs was properly refused.

The court found that the application for orders in the nature of mandamus and prohibition was not available against the Commissioner under the circumstances presented. The Commissioner's application for summary judgment was granted, based on the court's assessment that there was no genuine issue requiring a trial. The plaintiff’s application to discontinue the proceeding and for costs was refused, as the court considered the operation of relevant rules and the actions of the Commissioner did not render the proceeding useless.

The court’s final orders included the granting of summary judgment in favor of the Commissioner and the refusal of the plaintiff's application to discontinue the proceeding and for costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.