1. The following description is derived from a combination of statements made by Mr Ansell and the Board at the hearing, and Ms Iacono's affidavit.
2. I understand that Mr Ansell was admitted to practice in 1982 and has worked as a solicitor in Geelong for many years. Since 14 December 2015, he has been a sole practitioner trading as 'Ansell Lawyers'.
3. In December 2021, he took on an additional role: that of principal solicitor for an incorporated legal practice, People Shop Pty Ltd, trading as 'Erudite Legal'. He said he was asked to fulfil this role following the departure of the previous principal solicitor. He said the firm was unusual, in that it had only two clients: Ms Maria Di Gregorio and Mr Shivesh Kuksal. [4]
4. Mr Ansell has held the position of principal solicitor at Erudite Lawyers on two occasions: first, between 10 December 2021 and approximately 20 February 2022 and second, from 15 June to 20 August 2022.
5. The Board had concerns about Erudite Legal before Mr Ansell became its principal solicitor for the first time. It is concerned that it has been engaging in litigation without a proper basis, and may have been allowing or enabling Mr Kuksal to engage in unqualified legal practice. The Board and the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner have received enquiries and/or complaints concerning the affairs of the practice.
6. Ms Iacono's affidavit described the four separate statutory processes which the Board has undertaken in relation to Erudite Legal:
   • On 9 November 2021, the Board appointed Mr Damien Neylan to conduct a compliance audit of Erudite Legal.[5] Mr Neylan's reports of 20 December 2021 and 23 March 2022 stated that he was not able to complete the audit because of persistent non-compliance and lack of cooperation from Erudite Legal personnel. He indicated that there had been a succession of four legal directors of the practice between November 2021 and March 2022, none of whom had co-operated with him.
   • On 10 May 2022, the Board gave management system directions to the practice.[6] These required provision within three days of its register of files, details of any upcoming hearings involving the practice or its employees and details of its employees, including whether or not they are engaged in providing legal services and whether they hold practising certificates.[7] These directions were not complied with.
   • On 20 August 2022, as a result of the above non-compliances, the Board appointed Mr Howard Rapke as manager of the practice.[8]
   • On 18 August 2022, Mr Gordon Cooper was appointed to undertake an investigation into whether there have been any offences committed against, or civil penalty contraventions of, the Application Act or the Uniform Law in connection with the practice.[9] A number of arrangements have been made, over the period 23 August to the present, for Mr Ansell to be interviewed, however he has always failed to attend.

Ultimately, on 6 October 2022, the Board obtained a mandatory injunction from the Supreme Court requiring Mr Ansell to attend for examination by the investigator on 13 October 2022. Mr Ansell was present on 6 October 2022 and made a statement directly to Justice J Forrest to the effect that he would attend. However, he did not do so. The Board initiated a contempt application against Mr Ansell. This was returnable on Thursday, 27 October 2022 (three days after the hearing of this stay application).

1. Ms Iacono's affidavit also stated:[10]

By reason of the appointment of Mr Rapke as the Manager of the Law Practice, the Applicant, and others associated with the Law Practice, are not entitled to participate in its affairs without the Manager's consent. However, up to that time the Law Practice acted in relation to litigation in which it was engaged in ways that caused the Board concern.

As recently as 21 October 2022, Moshinsky J awarded costs as against, inter alia, the Law Practice (under its trading name Erudite Legal) on the indemnity basis on the grounds that allegations had been made including serious allegations of fraud and other impropriety that had no proper basis and ought never have been made, see Di Gregorio v Lumi Finance Pty Ltd [2022] FCA 1256 at [13].

1. In terms of the application for renewal of Mr Ansell's practising certificate, the key documents are:
   1. A letter from the Board to Mr Ansell dated 1 September 2022, seeking information pursuant to s.95 of the Uniform Law;
   2. A letter from the Board to Mr Ansell dated 5 October 2022, giving the Board's preliminary view;
   3. An email with annexures from Mr Ansell to the Board dated 17 October 2022, responding to the 'preliminary view' letter; and
   4. A letter from the Board to Mr Ansell dated 18 October 2022, providing the Board's decision.
2. In summary, the Board's refusal to issue a practising certificate to Mr Ansell was made on three grounds:
   1. his role in the non-compliances with the four statutory processes set out above;
   2. his failure to carry out his obligations as principal of the practice, namely: failing to ensure that the practice had approved professional indemnity insurance policy in place for the 2022-23 practice year, and failing to supervise the services provided by the practice;
   3. that he is not a person of good fame and character.
3. In relation to fame and character, one matter referred to by the Board was information it had received that Mr Ansell had provided Mr Kuksal with a copy of his signature so it could be affixed to documents.
4. It also referred to his conduct as solicitor on the record for Ms Di Gregorio in the matter of Di Gregorio v Magistrate McIntyre.[11] It said:[12]

Also of concern is your conduct as the solicitor on record for Ms Di Gregorio in the matter of Di Gregorio v Magistrate Mclntyre. The Supreme Court was critical of your conduct at paragraphs [9] to [13] of Its Judgment.

Your conduct in advancing one position, then adopting Mr Kuksal's conflicting position, and adopting Mr Kuksal's 'discursive' and in parts 'entirely irrelevant' submissions undermines the trust the Court can place in you, especially given the Court's finding that the position was one without 'a scintilla of evidence'. As Davies JA said in Steindl Nominees Pty Ltd v Leghaifar:[13]

... It is improper for counsel to present, even on instructions, a case which he or she regards as bound to fail because, if he or she so regards it, he or she must also regard it as unarguable.[14]

1. During the hearing, Mr Scotter, for the Board, indicated that in addition to the appointment of a manager to Erudite Legal on 20 August 2022, the Board had very recently resolved to appoint a manager to Mr Ansell's own practice, Ansell Lawyers. The Board proposed to serve him with that notice the following morning, 25 October 2022. The effect of this would be that Mr Ansell would be prohibited from practising under the banner of either firm (except with the direct supervision of the manager appointed).[15]

1. At the commencement of the hearing at 2 pm on Monday, 24 October 2022, Mr Shivesh Kuksal appeared on the video link. He said that he is a client of Mr Ansell's. He said he is the 'beneficial owner' of Erudite Legal, being the sole shareholder of the firm.
2. Mr Kuksal indicated that he would be disadvantaged if Mr Ansell was unable to provide legal services to him as there was a five-day criminal case being run against him which had commenced that day, and he was reliant on Mr Ansell to provide legal representation for him, or try to find alternative legal representation. The 'cancellation' of Mr Ansell's practising certificate had prevented him from having legal representation, which is his fundamental right. He said he sought a stay of the Board's decision not to renew Mr Ansell's practising certificate to enable Mr Ansell to represent him for the five day trial.
3. I suggested to Mr Kuksal that Mr Rapke, as the manager of Erudite Legal, now had the responsibility for protecting the interests of the firm's clients. It became apparent, however, that in terms of obtaining legal representation, Mr Kuksal was referring to Mr Ansell in his capacity as a sole practitioner of Ansell Lawyers, not as principal of Erudite Legal.
4. As noted below, Mr Ansell's evidence was to the effect that he was not acting for Mr Kuksal at the time of this hearing.
5. Mr Kuksal also sought to be joined as a party to these proceedings as a person affected. I refused that application. Mr Kuksal left the video link.

1. The Tribunal's power to grant a stay of the decision under review, pending the final determination, is found in s 50(3) of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998. Applicable authorities indicate a range of considerations to be applied in considering an application for a decision to be stayed, pending the review of that decision by the Tribunal. [16]: In my view, the key questions for the Tribunal's consideration in this instance are:
   • The impact on Mr Ansell's clients of not granting a stay.
   • The impact on Mr Ansell of not granting a stay, and in particular, whether that would render his right of review nugatory.
   • Whether there is a serious question to be tried on the review.
   • Whether the granting of the stay is in the public interest.

1. Item 10 of the VCAT application form for Review in the Legal Practice List invites an applicant to provide reasons for the application being made. Mr Ansell specified six reasons for bringing this proceeding. The first five relate to alleged legal errors with the decision: 'jurisdictional error or error of law', improper purpose, denial of procedural fairness, Wednesbury unreasonableness and pre-judgement by the Board.
2. These are the kinds of grounds on which an application for judicial review might be made to the Supreme Court. However, VCAT conducts merits review. Mr Ansell has a right to have the Board's decision remade on the merits, as of right, and it is not necessary for him to prove grounds of that kind.
3. The sixth reason given was that 'The decision causes irreparable harm to my clients and prejudices my ability to fulfil my statutory and equitable obligations'.
4. At item 11 of the VCAT application form, the applicant specifies whether they seek a stay of the decision being reviewed. Mr Ansell's application ticked the 'yes' box, saying:

The decision of the LSB, the manner in which it has been made and the matters that form relevant contextual background make the LSB's decisions highly prejudicial and risk causing irreparable harm to my clients and my practice.

The decisions have been ostensibly pursued as an abuse of process to prejudice my representation of clients currently maintaining proceedings against the LSB.

1. In the VCAT application form for seeking a stay, Mr Ansell said:

The decision is wrong at law and vindictive and causes significant damage to me financially as I cannot practise law and earn income.

My clients have had their legal representation immediately disrupted which could impact on the successful outcome of some matters, there is also the possibility of changing legal representation will increase legal costs to the client. The VLSB are charged with protecting clients this decision has the opposite effect. If the matter is not heard urgently the damage caused to me will not be reversible, as my business is currently been destroyed (sic).

1. The only other written material received from Mr Ansell was his submission of 17 October 2022 in response to the Board's letter of 5 October 2022 setting out its 'preliminary view' that he is not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate.
2. Mr Ansell's letter of 17 October 2022 raised various objections in relation to the appointment, and steps taken by the auditor, Mr Neylon. It alleged that actions taken by him and by the Board sought to improperly obtain privileged information and constituted blackmail. It alleged they had abused information obtained from a prior principal of the practice in bringing an application before Justice Wheelahan in the Federal Court of Australia.
3. It alleged that the management systems directions were issued without a proper basis and that these created a conflict of interest for the Board, because they undermined Mr Kuksal's impending lawsuit against the Board, which 'constituted a significant proportion of the Firm's work'.
4. It alleged that Mr Radke's appointment as practice manager was invalid.
5. It alleged that the investigation by Mr Cooper is an abuse of process and that the Board had an agenda to infringe Mr Kuksal's rights and adversely affect his economic interests.
6. In relation to the Di Gregorio v Magistrate McIntyre decision, it asserted the judgement demonstrated no wrongdoing by Mr Ansell.
7. It refered to an Originating Motion brought by Mr Ansell and others, filed on 29 August 2022 in the Supreme Court seeking judicial review 'of a number of the matters ... raised by the VLSB'.
8. Finally, in relation to good fame and character, the letter stated that Mr Ansell had been admitted to practice in 1982 and had only one complaint made against him in the past, 10 years ago, which was investigated, and it was found there was no case to answer.
9. In this hearing, Mr Ansell gave sworn evidence. He indicated, in effect, that at the request of Ms Di Gregorio and/or Mr Kuksal, he stepped into the role of principal solicitor on several occasions from December 2021.
10. Mr Ansell mentioned a number of concerns about the appointment of the auditor and practice manager. He also said he was caught in a position of holding privileged client information, and that he would breach his duty to his clients (Ms Di Gregorio and Mr Kuksal) if he handed this over to the auditor as requested.
11. In relation to the criteria relevant to whether a stay should be granted, aside from the issue of serious question to be tried, Mr Ansell made few if any relevant submissions.
12. Given the expectation that the appointment of a manager to Ansell Lawyers would come into effect the following morning, I asked Mr Ansell what practical detriment he would suffer if he did not have a practising certificate, pending the final determination of this review. In his response, he referred to the Supreme Court judicial review proceedings seeking to overturn the appointment of the manager to Erudite Legal, which proceedings he said were underway, and which he was confident would be successful.

1. In summary, the Board submitted that the circumstances demonstrated that Mr Ansell had set his face against any form of cooperation with the regulator. It said he lacked insight into the seriousness of his conduct, and to allow him to continue to practise while these proceedings are determined would run the danger of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute. It said that as a participant in the legal system, a lawyer must foster respect for the law and its administration, not undermine it.
2. The Board submitted that the refusal to renew Mr Ansell's practising certificate will not cause irreparable harm to clients, as managers have been appointed to ensure that appropriate legal services are provided to clients of the two practices.
3. In relation to Mr Ansell's contentions that the Board's actions were invalidly taken, the Board pointed to the statutory regime put in place by the Parliament, which provides those involved in legal regulation with wide-ranging powers which are able to be exercised where the interests of clients and the public necessitate this. For example, under s 466 of the Uniform Law, a requirement imposed under a compliance audit is not affected, and a person is not excused from complying with the requirement, on the ground of legal professional privilege, or any other duty of confidence. (Section 466(3) also removes the right to rely on the privilege against self-incrimination.)
4. Additionally, the Board submitted that Mr Ansell has been on notice for some months, that his right to practise was clearly in peril. He has had ample warning and time to put his affairs in order.

1. As noted above, the four most important considerations in relation to the application for a stay are the effect of the decision on Mr Ansell's clients, and on Mr Ansell himself, whether there is a serious question to be tried, and the public interest.
2. In relation to the impact on the clients of the two practices of Mr Ansell not holding a practising certificate, clearly, the manager appointed under the Uniform Law in each case now has the responsibility for protecting the interests of clients (within the confines of their overriding ethical duties, of course). So clients' interests are protected.
3. Concerning the second matter, as emerged from the discussions during the course of the stay hearing, even if a stay is granted such that Mr Ansell is able to practise as solicitor, that would have no practical effect in relation to the two practices he operates, or has operated, as they are now both (I assume) in the hands of a manager.
4. What Mr Ansell said in response to this is that he anticipates that he will succeed in his proceeding in the Supreme Court and that this will have the effect that Erudite Legal would be able to operate. I say nothing about that. I know very little about the Supreme Court proceeding, but until such time as it is determined in his favour, the position in practical terms remains that granting a stay would serve no purpose with regard to that practice.
5. Far from rendering his application nugatory, the failure to grant a stay will have very little impact until such time as that proceeding is heard and determined in his favour.[17]
6. On the third question of whether there is a serious question to be tried, the Board has relied on multiple bases for its decision. These amount to allegations of multiple serious non-compliances with important obligations of practitioners.
7. Some or all of these are taken issue with by Mr Ansell, but as things stand, there is little basis at this point for me to determine that it is likely that consideration of the matter of 'serious questions to be tried' will militate greatly in Mr Ansell's favour.
8. Concerning the Di Gregorio v Magistrate McIntyre decision, Mr Ansell said that the New South Wales Supreme Court decision which awarded costs against his client (Ms Di Gregorio) and Mr Kuksal (self-represented) did not contain criticism of him. Clearly, however, as the above passage from the letter of 5 October 2022 shows, it did contain implied criticism of him.
9. In Di Gregorio v Lumi Finance Pty Ltd, the Court ordered that Erudite Legal, as solicitors on the record for Ms Di Gregorio, pay costs on an indemnity basis to various persons it had attempted (unsuccessfully) to join to Federal Court proceedings. The Court said that it had participated in the making of serious allegations of fraud and other impropriety, which had no proper basis, and should never have been made.
10. Concerning Mr Ansell's statement that he would breach his client's legal privilege by responding to the statutory requests to provide information, he made no reply to the Board's submission that under s 466 of the Uniform Law, such privilege is, in effect, overridden.
11. Concerning the failure to arrange insurance cover, Mr Ansell said in effect, that this task had been delegated to others.
12. In summary, there may be some matters to argue on the merits, but as matters stand, given the non-specific nature of the contentions made in relation to those matters by Mr Ansell, it is not clear to me that this factor of serious question to be tried runs in his favour.
13. In any event, the question of whether there is a serious question to be tried is not the dominant consideration in relation to this stay application. Rather, the most important considerations here are the lack of utility of granting a stay at this stage, and the significant suite of public interest concerns raised by the Board.
14. Finally, I turn to that question of whether or not it is within the community's interest that a stay be granted. In that regard I simply refer to the fact that the reasons for refusal of renewal contain a number of very serious matters against Mr Ansell, including a failure to respond appropriately to three statutory demand processes for providing information. One of them has got to the point of a contempt application being pursued by the Board against him, in the Supreme Court.
15. The Board also expressed serious concerns about the supervision of staff (and of Mr Kuksal) and about the failure to obtain appropriate insurance cover as required. This is a fundamental obligation under statute of a solicitor.
16. Suffice to say, there are a number of very serious matters relevant to the issue of the public interest which the Board has raised, which give pause to the Tribunal, in considering whether to stay the decision the subject of this proceeding.
17. For those reasons, the application for a stay is refused.

1. After I announced my decision refusing a stay, the Board sought an order that Mr Ansell pay its costs of this stay application, under s 109 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998.
2. The Board submitted that this application was always hopeless and futile.
3. Mr Ansell submitted that no costs order should be made, because the contentions he made were arguable. He also said his lack of ability to forward documents to the Tribunal prejudiced his ability to argue his case.
4. As noted, Mr Ansell suggested that there are good arguments to be made that the Board's actions in relation to Erudite Legal were not validly carried out, and he anticipated that the judicial review proceeding in the Supreme Court would be successful. It is not appropriate for the Tribunal to purport to express any concluded view on such matters.
5. However, that would not address all the matters relevant to the question of whether there is a serious question to be tried. Further, that is not the dominant consideration in relation to this stay application. As stated, the most important factors here are the lack of utility of granting a stay at this stage, and the significant suite of public interest concerns raised by the Board.
6. In the end, when the time came for Mr Ansell to address the criteria applicable to a stay application, he made virtually no submissions relevant to that question, aside from matters going to the merits of his substantive application. This suggests that he had attended the hearing unprepared to argue in favour of the stay application, which he had requested be listed urgently for hearing on Monday 24 October 2022. I accept the submission made by the Board that to the extent he believed he was prejudiced in his ability to argue his case by his inability to forward material to the Tribunal, he should have waited until he was able to make a proper application.
7. The general position in the Tribunal is that each party bears its own costs in a proceeding. However, the Tribunal has a discretion to make a costs order if it is fair to do so, having regard to the criteria set out in s 109(3). The criterion relied on by the Board is s 109(3)(c), which relates to 'the relative strengths of the claims made by each of the parties, including whether a party has made a claim that has no tenable basis in fact or law'.
8. Of course, the Board's costs application relates only to the stay application, not Mr Ansell's substantive application for review. It is the strength of that application for a stay which is relevant to consider here. The above analysis demonstrates a clear basis on which a stay should not be granted. In considering costs, it is significant that Mr Ansell made little or no attempt to address the criteria relevant to the granting of a stay (aside from matters going to the issue of 'serious questions to be tried'). The case for a stay was very weak. I conclude that it is fair to order that Mr Ansell pay the costs of the Board.

[1] The Uniform Law is given effect in Victoria by the Application Act.

[2] The application form also sought to have the Tribunal review 'The decision to appoint an external manager to my practice.' However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to conduct such reviews. That is vested in the Supreme Court and s 358 of the Uniform Law and s 10 of the Application Act.

[3] While Mr Ansell suggested that affidavits by Ms Di Gregorio (concerning arrangements for obtaining insurance for the practice) and by himself and had been filed and served in support of his position, these were not received by time of the hearing, nor since.

[4] I refer to that practice in this decision as 'Erudite Legal', or 'the practice'. The Board indicated it has also traded as 'New Edge Law'.

[7] The directions also required other things, such as proper supervision of all legal and non-legal staff by the principal, and compliance with other requirements of the Uniform Law.

[9] Under s 153(1) of the Application Act.

[11] [2022] NSWSC 850.

[12] At [72]-[73] of the 5 October 2022 letter.

[13] [2003] QCA 157; [2003] 2 Qd R 683.

[16] See for example Bell and Eager v Liquor Licensing Victoria and Swapnil [2000] VCAT 214, (Kellam J), Knight v Victorian Legal Services Board [2022] VCAT 87.

[17] Mr Ansell made no reference to seeking to practise aside from through Erudite Legal and Ansell Lawyers.