The applicant and the respondent have agreed on the amount of costs to be paid by the respondent. These costs are fixed by the Tribunal in the sum of $12,500.
Parties
Applicant/Plaintiff:
Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent/Defendant:
Mericka
Cases Cited (4)
Legal Services Commissioner v Mericka (Legal Practice) [2014] VCAT 1576 (18 December 2014)
In 2010, Dr Claire Noone (in her capacity as the Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria) commenced proceeding no. SCI 2010 4660 in the Commercial Court of the Supreme Court of Victoria ('Proceeding').
The respondent was the First Defendant, LRE the Second Defendant and SLOD Pty Ltd the Third Defendant in the Proceeding. The respondent was the sole shareholder of LRE which, in turn, was the sole shareholder of SLOD.
The Honourable Justice Sifris ('Sifris J') heard the trial of the Proceeding on 6 and 7 November 2011. Mr Wikramanayake S.C. and Mr Rimmer appeared as counsel for the Defendants, instructed by Mr Tim Dixon of Stynes Dixon lawyers. Judgment on liability was given by Sifris J in favour of the Plaintiff on 27 March 2012 (at [2012] VSC 101).
After a further hearing on the question of relief on 16 April 2012 (where Mr Rimmer alone appeared for the Defendants), Sifris J gave a further judgment and made final orders in the Proceeding on 24 April 2012 (at [20121 VSC 2).
At no time during the hearing of the Proceeding was any application made by or on behalf of the Defendants asserting actual or apprehended bias on the part of Sifris J. Further, no appeal was commenced by the Defendants in respect of the final orders made by Sifris J in the Proceeding.
I wish to lodge a formal complaint of bias and incompetence on the part of Sifris J. in his hearing and determining the matter of Dr Claire Noone, Director of Consumer Affairs Victoria v Peter Mericka & Ors[2013] VSC 101.
I am indebted to the applicant's counsel for providing a number of authorities which deal with similar situations and their dispositions. The authority which comes closest to the one presently before the Tribunal is a matter which came before the Legal Practice Tribunal of Queensland in the matter of Legal Services Commissioner v Turley [2008] LPT 4. In that matter the respondent was a 66 year old solicitor who made scandalous and offensive submissions during the course of proceedings before the Magistrates' Court at Gladstone. The Tribunal, presided over by Chief Justice de Jersey, was satisfied that at the time of the events the respondent was suffering from depression and other medical problems for which he subsequently underwent proper treatment. The disposition included a reprimand and an order that the respondent pay the applicant's costs. There was also an order limiting the respondent's engagement in legal practice to one of being subject to supervision.
I do not consider that it is necessary to interfere with the respondent's practising certificate in any way in order to achieve the requisite objectives of these proceedings. Nor do I consider that a fine is necessary. I reprimand the respondent in relation to each of the two charges and point out that a reprimand is not an insignificant disposition. It signifies disapproval of the respondent's actions and is a stain carried by the respondent for the remainder of his professional life.