Odtojan v Condon (No 2)

[2023] NSWCA 149

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Odtojan v Condon (No 2) [2023] NSWCA 149
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Decision date:	03 July 2023
Before:	Leeming and Kirk JJA at [1]
Decision:	The Registrar of this Court be directed to refer the papers in this proceeding to the Office of the Legal Services Commissioner.
Catchwords:	PROFESSIONS – legal practitioners directed to show cause why the papers should not be referred – submissions and affidavit supplied to Court confirmed appropriateness of referral
Legislation Cited:	Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors’ Conduct Rules 2015, rr 5, 32
Cases Cited:	Odtojan v Condon [2023] NSWCA 129
Category:	Consequential orders
Parties:	Marie Odtojan (Applicant) Miles Condon (Respondent)
Representation:	Advocates: Artem Bryl and Marie Odtojan (self-represented)
File Number(s):	2023/103644
Publication restriction:	N/A
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of New South Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Date of Decision: 16 February 2023 Before: Norton DCJ File Number(s): 2022/00273980

JUDGMENT

1. THE COURT: On 9 June 2023 the Court dismissed Ms Odtojan’s application for leave to appeal from orders of the District Court which struck out her pleading whilst granting her leave to replead: Odtojan v Condon [2023] NSWCA 129. The amended statement of claim had alleged a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice on the part of the respondent, a senior counsel. The Court also made this order:

(3) Each of Ms Marie Odtojan and Mr Artem Bryl to have 14 days from today to show cause why this Court’s judgment and the papers in this Court should not be referred to the Legal Services Commissioner.

2. Ms Marie Odtojan was the plaintiff in the District Court and the applicant for leave to appeal. Mr Artem Bryl is her husband. Both are legal practitioners. Ms Odtojan appeared for herself in the District Court, and signed the written submissions in this Court in support of her application for leave. Mr Bryl conducted the oral submissions in this Court, and confirmed that he accepted responsibility for the written submissions.

3. Paragraphs 80-85 of the Court’s earlier judgment explained the basis for order 3:

The appropriate way for this Court to proceed

80 What emerges from the above is that either or both of Ms Odtojan and Mr Bryl have:

(1) accused the solicitor and junior counsel who acted for Ms Odtojan at the Local Court trial of a conspiracy with the opposing party and legal team to pervert the course of justice;

(2) accused senior counsel who advised on appeal prospects of participation in a further conspiracy and of acting fraudulently;

(3) submitted that a District Court judge who made a procedural order for a small amount of security for costs was biased and had acted in bad faith, which allegations were found to be unsubstantiated;

(4) accused the District Court judge who struck out a pleading whilst granting leave to replead of actual and apprehended bias, even though the pleading was concededly defective;

(5) accused those involved in the preparation of the…