Gabriel Kuek v Lamprini Wade and Magistrates' Court of Victoria

Gabriel Kuek, a solicitor, filed an application for judicial review against Lamprini Wade and the Magistrates' Court of Victoria, challenging the court's decision to strike out his proceeding to enforce a costs agreement with his client. The client, self-represented, had entered into an agreement to pay Kuek $10,000 in costs. During the hearing, the magistrate took control of the proceeding, redefined the client's case without hearing any evidence, and cross-examined Kuek. The magistrate ruled that the agreement was unenforceable at common law and that the Legal Profession Act 2004 was irrelevant. The court issued a self-executing order granting Kuek leave to amend his pleadings within 30 days to plead quantum meruit, but as the time limit was not met, the order took effect and the proceeding was struck out. The judge dismissed Kuek's application for judicial review in the exercise of discretion.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the judge had the discretion to dismiss Kuek's application for judicial review and whether there was a suitable alternative remedy available to Kuek. The court held that the judge did have the discretion to dismiss the application and that there was no alternative remedy available to Kuek. The court further found that there was no error of law on the face of the Magistrates' Court record, as the magistrate's reasons recorded in the transcript did form part of the record under the Administrative Law Act 1978 section 10. The court rejected Kuek's claims that the magistrate's conduct denied him procedural fairness, gave rise to apprehended bias, and resulted in the trial not being according to law. However, the court found that the judge erred in not making findings on these grounds of review.

Ultimately, the appeal was allowed, and the court held that the Legal Profession Act 2004 overrides common law principles that are inconsistent with the Act. The case of Able Demolitions and Excavations Pty Ltd v Barry Kenna & Co [2016] VSCA 312 was applied, and the court found that the magistrate's decision was erroneous. The court quashed the decision of the judge and remitted the matter for reconsideration.