Quinn v Law Institute of Victoria Limited (No 2)

In the matter of Quinn v Law Institute of Victoria Limited (No 2), the appellant sought to challenge a decision of the Legal Profession Tribunal, with the Law Institute of Victoria Limited as the respondent. The Tribunal had previously dismissed an application by the appellant, Quinn, to set aside its decision. Quinn now appealed the Tribunal’s decision, and the Institute was involved in the appeal process. The central issues before the court were whether the Institute acted as an amicus curiae or as a protagonist in the appeal, whether it was appropriate for the Institute to consent to an order setting aside the Tribunal’s decision for error of law, and whether exceptional circumstances were necessary to order the Institute to pay the costs of the review proceedings.

The court examined whether the Institute appeared as an amicus curiae or as a protagonist in the appeal. The court determined that the Institute’s involvement in the proceedings was more aligned with that of a protagonist, given the nature of its participation and the extent to which it contested the appeal. Furthermore, the court found that it was open to the Institute to consent to an order setting aside the Tribunal’s decision for error of law, even though such orders are not common. The court also held that exceptional circumstances were not necessary to order the Institute to pay the costs of the review proceedings. The court considered the relevance of whether the error of law was induced by the respondent Institute and concluded that it was not a decisive factor in determining the appropriateness of ordering costs against the Institute.

The court ordered the Institute to pay the appellant’s costs of the appeal. This decision was grounded in the court’s finding that the Institute had acted more as a protagonist than as an amicus curiae, and its participation in the appeal was deemed to have warranted the imposition of costs. The court’s ruling underscored the importance of the nature of a party’s involvement in proceedings and the potential consequences of such involvement, particularly in relation to costs orders.