Viscariello v Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Viscariello against interlocutory decisions made in judicial review proceedings. The dispute arose from Mr Viscariello's dissatisfaction with the handling of his complaints against legal practitioners by the former Legal Practitioners Conduct Board. Following amendments to the relevant legislation, the Commissioner, Mr May, assumed the Board's functions. Mr May, who was himself the subject of one of Mr Viscariello's complaints, proposed to delegate his investigative and determinative powers to an independent party to address a conflict of interest. Mr Viscariello found this proposal unacceptable, arguing it would undermine public confidence. The appeal was heard by the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Kourakis CJ, Lovell and Hinton JJ.

The central legal issues before the Full Court were whether permission to appeal should be granted on various grounds, and if so, whether the appeal should be allowed. Specifically, the court considered the validity of the Commissioner's proposed delegation of powers under the *Legal Practitioners Act*, the Commissioner's retention of powers despite delegation, and the appropriateness of the costs order made by the primary judge. The court also had to determine whether certain grounds of appeal required permission to be granted.

The Full Court reasoned that the costs order made by the primary judge was based on an erroneous factual basis, necessitating permission to appeal that order. However, it did not automatically follow that the appeal on costs would be allowed. The court granted permission to appeal on specific grounds related to the costs order and two other grounds concerning the delegation of powers, but refused permission on most other grounds. The court dismissed the appeal on several grounds, including those relating to the Commissioner's retention of powers and the initial decision to grant permission for judicial review.

The Full Court ordered that permission to file and serve a second statement of claim be granted. Permission to appeal was granted on grounds 6 and 7, but refused on grounds 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, and 18. The appeal was dismissed on grounds 1, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14. Permission to appeal was granted on ground 19, concerning the costs order of 23 February 2016, and the parties were to be heard further on this issue, as well as on the costs of the application for permission to appeal and the appeal itself.