(a) an alleged failure to consider the reasons for the applicant's delay in applying for an extension of time, including by reference to the applicant's evidence and submissions (grounds 1 and 3), his impecuniosity and lack of legal representation (ground 2), the prejudice to the respondent (ground 4) and the deed of settlement between the parties (ground 5);

(b) an alleged failure to consider the applicant's submissions and evidence in relation to VCAT's finding of guilt with respect to charges 1 and 3 (grounds 6 and 7), VCAT's decision in relation to his pre-trial applications (ground 8), the test VCAT applied to determine whether the pleading he had prepared had a proper basis (ground 9), VCAT's treatment of an expert report (ground 10), VCAT's interpretation of various instruments and evidence (grounds 11 and 12), the drawing of inferences adverse to the respondent (ground 14), whether VCAT acted in excess of or without jurisdiction (ground 15), the applicant's submissions relevant to VCAT's findings of guilt (grounds 16 and 17), the applicant's allegation that VCAT penalised him for future conduct (ground 18), the charges in respect of which his penalty was assessed (ground 19), matters relevant to the restriction of his practising certificate (ground 20), whether there were exceptional circumstances justifying no order as to costs (ground 21), the applicant's submissions on costs (ground 22) and both parties' submissions as to costs (ground 25);

(c) an alleged error in the judge's finding as to whether VCAT amended charge 1 (ground 13);

(d) an alleged failure by VCAT to give sufficient reasons as to costs and penalty (ground 23) and an alleged failure by the Judicial Registrar to give sufficient reasons for the costs order (ground 24); and

(e) an alleged failure to consider the applicant's evidence and submissions in relation to his application to join VCAT in both proceedings (ground 26), to file and serve a notice to admit on VCAT (ground 27), to serve interrogatories (grounds 28 and 29) and to amend his notice of appeal (ground 30).

1. The judge gave detailed reasons for rejecting these grounds. The applicant has supplied no reason to suggest that the judge misunderstood the facts and the law, misdirected himself or came to an erroneous result. In fact, the decision of the judge was patently correct.
2. None of the proposed grounds of appeal are arguable. To the extent that several of the proposed grounds relate to procedural matters dealt with by the judge, no basis to impugn those aspects of the decision has been established. The grounds that relate to the judge's decision regarding delay and the applicant's prospects of success are entirely without merit. Some of the grounds depend on factual allegations that this Court has previously found to lack evidentiary support.[15]
3. The judge properly applied the principles regarding applications for an extension of time and no basis for disturbing the judge's exercise of the discretion to refuse an extension of time has been identified.
4. We would dismiss the application for leave to appeal in relation to the disciplinary proceeding.

1. The applicant attacked the judge's decision not to grant an extension of time to appeal in the judicial review proceeding on a range of grounds including, by way of summary:

(a) an alleged failure to consider the reasons for the applicant's delay in applying for an extension of time, including by reference to the applicant's evidence and submissions (grounds 1 and 3), his impecuniosity and lack of legal representation (ground 2), the prejudice to the respondent (ground 4) and the deed of settlement between the parties (ground 5);

(b) alleged errors in the decision to refuse the applicant leave to discontinue the proceeding (ground 6), the decision to grant summary judgment (ground 7), and the refusal of applications for orders in the nature of mandamus (ground 8), certiorari (ground 9) and prohibition (ground 10);

(c) other alleged errors in the decision in relation to waiver of legal professional privilege (ground 11), alleged fraud and other conduct by the respondent (grounds 12, 15 and 16), alleged non-compliance with statutory requirements in relation to the respondent's notice of decision (ground 13), costs (grounds 14 and 26), other matters raised by the applicant's originating motion (ground 17) and the application of the Evidence Act 2008 (ground 18);

(d) an alleged failure to provide sufficient reasons (grounds 19 and 20); and

(e) an alleged failure to consider the applicant's evidence and submissions in relation to his applications to join VCAT in both proceedings (ground 21), to file and serve a notice to admit on VCAT (ground 22), to serve interrogatories (grounds 23 and 24) and to amend his notice of appeal (ground 25), and both parties' submissions as to costs (ground 27).

1. Again the judge gave exemplary reasons. There is an overlap in many of the grounds relied on in relation to the disciplinary proceeding. As with the disciplinary proceeding, several of the proposed grounds relate to procedural matters dealt with by the trial judge and, to that extent, we would reject them on the same basis. The grounds that relate to substantive matters are completely without merit. The applicant has not identified any basis to interfere with the judge's exercise of the discretion not to grant an extension of time.
2. Further, by the judicial review application, the applicant sought review of an ongoing investigation into his conduct. As already noted, the proceeding was overtaken by the respondent's conclusion of the investigation. In those circumstances, the parties agreed that the proceeding should conclude, although there was a dispute as to whether it should conclude by way of discontinuance or summary dismissal. Given that neither party desired for the proceeding to continue to trial, there was no injustice in the Associate Judge's decision to summarily dismiss the proceeding.
3. The application for leave to appeal in relation to the judicial review proceeding must be dismissed.

1. Given the applications for leave to appeal in respect of both proceedings are dismissed, there is no utility in dealing with the other applications made by the applicant. However, for completeness, we would observe that there was no merit in any of them, and specifically that there was no basis for the reception of any new evidence or the making of any of the other procedural orders sought by the applicant.

[1] Beling v Legal Services Commissioner [2016] VSC 180.

[2] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2023] VSC 212.

[3] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2017] VCAT 1022.

[4] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2017] VCAT 1576.

[5] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2020] VSC 200.

[6] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2023] VSC 213.

[7] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2020] VSC 200, [11].

[8] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2020] VSC 200, [88].

[9] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2021] VSCA 257; Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2021] HCASL 239.

[10] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2023] VSC 338.

[11] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) [2023] VSC 337.

[12] Trkulja v Dobrijevic [2015] VSCA 281, [27].

[13] Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516, 521 (Brennan CJ and McHugh J).

[14] See Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2021] VSCA 257, [20].

[15] Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2021] VSCA 257, [19]-[20]; Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner [2021] VSCA 256, [65], [100].