A summary of interstate court decisions involving solicitors.
Victoria
Supreme Court
Victorian Legal Services Board v Kuksal [2024] VSC 674
Decision published: 1 November 2024
On 1 November 2024, the Supreme Court of Victoria (Supreme Court) published its decision in proceedings that the Victorian Legal Services Board (Board) commenced against defendants including Mr Shivesh Kuksal, Mr Peter Ansell, Ms Lulu Xu.
The Supreme Court made orders restraining:
- restraining Mr Ansell, who last held a practising certificate in October 2022, from engaging in legal practice or representing that he is entitled to engage in legal practice while he does not hold a practising certificate; and
- restraining Mr Ansell, Mr Kuksal and Ms Lu from:
- sending emails from the a specified email domain;
- sending or issuing correspondence purporting to be sent by or on behalf of the law practice (or agents of the law practice), previously conducted by People Shop Pty Ltd trading as “Erudite Legal” or “New Edge Law” (Law Practice);
- sending or issuing correspondence which uses or contains the livery of the Law Practice;
- representing that they are undertaking or managing the affairs of the Law Practice; and
- drawing and/or distributing documents of a legal character (including, but not limited to, pleadings, affidavits and submissions) on behalf of the Law Practice.
Western Australia
Court of Appeal
Khosa v Legal Services and Complaints Committee [2024] WASCA148
Decision published: 22 November 2024
On 22 November 2024, the Western Australia Court of Appeal (Court of Appeal) published its decision in appeal proceedings that Mr Manraj Singh Khosa commenced against the Western Australian Legal Services and Complaints Committee (Committee).
On 26 October 2023, the Western Australian State Administrative Tribunal found that Mr Khosa had engaged in professional misconduct on the basis that he:
- failed to pay counsel’s invoices and instead, applied funds received from clients to pay his own invoices;
- knowingly made false and misleading representations on multiple occasions, to counsel and the Legal Practice Board;
- attempting to avoid the liabilities of his former law practice, including an obligation to pay counsel’s fees in accordance with the retainer and his professional obligations; and
- failing, without reasonable excuse, to respond to correspondence and a summons issued by the Committee during its investigation of the complaints made against him.
On 28 March 2024, the Tribunal made orders requiring:
- a report of the Tribunal’s findings to be transmitted to the Supreme Court (Full Bench) with a recommendation that Mr Khosa’s name be removed from the roll of persons admitted to the legal profession; and
- Mr Khosa to pay the Committee’s costs of the proceedings fixed in the amount of $197,053.05.
On 23 April 2024, Mr Khosa commenced an appeal in the Court of Appeal with respect to the Tribunal’s orders.
The Court of Appeal refused Mr Khosa leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. It held:
“[64] The appellant requires leave to appeal against the Tribunal’s orders under s 105(1) of the SAT Act. As this court recognised in Paridis v Settlement Agents Supervisory Board,[33] the power to grant leave is conferred in general terms and leave should be granted if, in all of the circumstances, it is in the interests of justice that there should be a grant of leave.
[65] In the present case, none of the appellant’s grounds of appeal have any reasonable prospect of succeeding. As such, the correctness of the Tribunal’s decision is not attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of leave to appeal. It is in the interests of justice for leave to appeal to be refused and for the appeal to be dismissed.
[66] We note that many of the appellant’s grounds of appeal are directed to impugning the conduct orders. As we have already concluded that the relevant grounds do not have a reasonable prospect of succeeding, it is unnecessary for this court to consider whether it is open to the appellant to advance those grounds when the appeal is only against the penalty orders.”
Supreme Court
Legal Practice Board v Elek-Roser [2024] WASC 405
Decision published: 30 October 2024
On 30 October 2024, the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Supreme Court) published its decision in disciplinary proceedings that the Western Australian Legal Practice Board (Board) commenced against Mr Dean Oliver Elek-Roser.
The Board sought an order that Mr Elek-Roser’s name be removed from the roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court, based on several instances of alleged misconduct between 2017 and 2022, including:
- failures to respond to, or comply with, requests and orders of the Board and the Legal Profession Complaints Committee;
- mismanagement of client funds; and
- engaging in legal practice when suspended from practice, or after his practising certificate was cancelled, as well as representing to others that he was so qualified.
Mr Elek-Roser’s conduct led to adverse findings against him of professional misconduct by the State Administrative Tribunal, and criminal convictions in the Magistrates Court for offences of unqualified legal practice contrary to the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA).
The Supreme Court made the order that the Board sought and held:
“[98] Having regard to the factual background outlined in these reasons, and the specific findings we have made, we were satisfied that the order sought by the Board pursuant to s 23(1)(b) of the Uniform Law should be made. That is, we were satisfied the Board had demonstrated the practitioner is not a fit and proper person to remain a legal practitioner. The aim of protecting the public and the objective of enhancing the reputation of the legal profession, would be seriously undermined by permitting the practitioner to continue to act as such.
[…]
[113] The practitioner’s conduct, when viewed in totality, has demonstrated, in our view, that his continuation as a practitioner would seriously undermine the public’s confidence in the profession and that his character and conduct is inconsistent with the privilege of being entitled to so practice. The practitioner has defied the orders of the regulator on numerous occasions. We find that the practitioner does not properly understand his obligations as a practitioner and his duties to the Court.”
