Sandbach v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner

In the Supreme Court, Sandbach sought to appeal the disciplinary proceedings brought against them by the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner. Sandbach, a legal practitioner, was found to have breached r 65 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 by making allegations of fraud against another legal practitioner without reasonable grounds. Sandbach alleged that the other practitioner produced a false invoice, and this resulted in a finding of professional misconduct against them. Sandbach applied for leave to appeal the decision, arguing that the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (VCAT) erred in law in its approach to the rules and in its findings.

The court examined whether VCAT erred in law in relation to r 65(a) and (b) of the Uniform Conduct Rules. The court held that VCAT did not err in its interpretation of r 65(a), which requires the practitioner to have a belief on reasonable grounds that the material provided a proper basis for the allegation. The court also found that VCAT did not err in its inference, based on privileged material, that the first element of r 65(b) had been established. The court further held that the proposed grounds of appeal did not have a real prospect of success, and therefore leave to appeal was refused.

Additionally, Sandbach sought leave to appeal the penalty imposed by VCAT, which was a reprimand and a prohibition from applying for an Australian practising certificate for 12 months. The court found that the proposed grounds of appeal did not have a real prospect of success and that no error was established. Therefore, leave to appeal the penalty was also refused.

In summary, the court dismissed Sandbach’s appeal against the findings of professional misconduct and the penalty imposed by VCAT. The court held that VCAT did not err in law in its approach to the Uniform Conduct Rules or in its findings. The proposed grounds of appeal did not have a real prospect of success, and therefore leave to appeal was refused.