By -

The following are summaries of interstate legal regulatory decisions.

Marcevski v Victorian Legal Services Board [2024] VSC 323

Decision published: 17 June 2024

On 17 June 2024, the Supreme Court of Victoria (Court) published its decision in proceedings that
Mr Nick Marcevski had commenced to seek to appeal against the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal’s (Tribunal) refusal to stay the Victorian Legal Services Board’s decision to cancel Mr Marcevski’s practising certificate. The appeal required leave of the Court.

The Court refused leave to appeal. It held that there was insufficient evidence to establish any of
Mr Marcevski’s grounds of appeal and it was not satisfied that the applicant demonstrated a question of law which had a real prospect of success.

Sandbach v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2024] VSCA 143 

Decision published: 27 June 2024

On 27 June 2024, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Court of Appeal) published its decision in appeal proceedings that Mr Alan Walter Sandbach had commenced against the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (Commissioner).

Mr Sandbach sought leave to appeal a prior decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal), in relation to a charge of professional misconduct. The charge arose based on a finding that
Mr Sandbach engaged in conduct which constituted both:

  1. a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence; and
  2. a contravention of Rule 65 of the Legal Profession Uniform Conduct (Barristers) Rules 2015 (Vic);

by alleging fraud without reasonable grounds to believe that there was available material to support and give proper basis to the allegations, and without instructions from the client.

The Tribunal found Mr Sandbach guilty of professional misconduct and made orders:

  1. reprimanding My Sandbach; and
  2. prohibiting Mr Sandbach from applying for a practising certificate for a period of twelve (12) months commencing 16 April 2023.

Mr Sandbach appealed the decision on twelve (12) separate grounds and the Court of Appeal subsequently formed the view that leave to appeal should be granted in respect to three (3) proposed grounds, but that the appeal would be dismissed in respect of those grounds. The Court of Appeal held it would refuse leave on all the other proposed grounds.