Ejueyitsi v Victorian Legal Admissions Board

The case of Ejueyitsi v Victorian Legal Admissions Board was heard by the Federal Court of Australia, where the Applicant sought to sue the Respondent, the Victorian Legal Admissions Board, on various grounds. The Applicant claimed that the Board had refused to admit them as a legal practitioner based on the view that their law degree was fraudulent and issued by a degree mill university. The Applicant sought to sue the Board under the Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) for misleading and deceptive conduct. The Applicant argued that the Board was a trading corporation and therefore subject to the Australian Consumer Law (ACL). The Applicant also sought to bring a claim in the nature of judicial review, alleging a misapplication of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic). Finally, the Applicant argued that costs should not follow the event given their financial circumstances and the nature of the Board's evidence.

The primary legal issues for the Court to decide were whether the Board could be sued under the ACL and whether the Court had jurisdiction to hear the claim. The Court found that the Board was not a corporation for the purposes of the ACL, and therefore the ACL did not apply to the Board. The Court also found that even if the claim could be reconceptualised as a claim under the ACL as applied by Victorian law, the Court did not have jurisdiction to hear such a claim. The Court found that the claim had no reasonable prospects of success.

The Court concluded that the claim against the Board was incapable of succeeding under any circumstances. The Court ordered that the Applicant's proceeding be dismissed under s 31A of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth). The Board was entitled to costs on a lump sum basis in the amount of $17,166.00, as the Applicant's arguments for why costs should not follow the event were unpersuasive. The Court found that the Board's evidence was not "inflammatory", "false", or "scandalous" as the Applicant had argued. The Court's decision provides guidance on the application of the ACL to statutory authorities and the jurisdiction of the Federal Court to hear claims under State law.