16 Dec 2021
The LCRO was entitled to consider the evidential foundation of the complaint and to strike out the review under s205(1)(a) where a serious allegation (a lawyer lied to the court) lacked any cogent evidential basis; the s205 test is not the same as r15.1 and the LCRO's decision was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach.
21 Dec 2020
Proceedings were struck out because the applicant repeatedly failed to secure legal representation for the company he purports to represent, causing prejudice and delay; the claim disclosed no reasonably arguable cause of action in light of the applicant advancing matters not before the LCRO and confusing review of the LCRO decision with substantive complaints against counsel, rendering the proceedings an abuse of process and justifying strike out under r 15.1.
31 Oct 2017
Applicant failed to demonstrate he took appropriate steps or had material establishing reasonable grounds for pleading deceit/fraud; he did not rebut the Committee's and LCRO's findings and did not assert or substantiate privilege; accordingly LCRO correctly upheld findings that applicant breached r 13.8.1 (and consequently rr 13.8 and 13) and the judicial review application was dismissed.
2 Nov 2016
The LCRO did not commit any material error of law or fact; the Standards Committee's significant factual findings (including that the practitioner's explanation was not credible) supported a finding of misconduct and justified referral to the Disciplinary Tribunal; the judicial review application is dismissed.
19 May 2016
The Court held the Committee's finding of a r 11.1 breach was procedurally unfair because it failed to disclose and allow response to the complainant's 21 November 2012 letter; the Committee's r 3.4 finding was legally erroneous or at best a technical breach insufficient to justify the adverse disciplinary finding. Consequently the Committee's determination and the LCRO's decision upholding it were quashed; no rehearing was ordered and costs of the disciplinary orders were set aside.
4 Mar 2016
The Court upheld the LCRO's substantive decision to dismiss the review because the LCRO lawfully exercised her statutory review function and came to a view within a reasonable range; however the LCRO's costs decision was quashed because she failed to consider relevant late submissions and a recusal application thereby acting unreasonably and breaching procedural fairness in relation to the costs award.
14 Jul 2011
Default judgment was set aside because there was insufficient evidence that the LCRO decision had been reported/communicated to the appellants so the statutory stay under s161 may not have expired and the 30 day period to defend had not clearly run; accordingly the District Court could not have properly entered default judgment and the appeal succeeds with the default judgment vacated and 30 days granted to file a defence.