Court of Appeal (Vic)|2023-12-20|Before: Beach JA

For the reasons given above, the application for leave to appeal will be refused.
In its written case, the respondent submitted that the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed with costs. Ordinarily, costs would follow the event upon the refusal of an application for leave to appeal. That said, I will give the applicant the opportunity to make any submissions he wishes to make about costs, including why they should not follow the event in this case.

[1] Two charges of performing an indecent act with a child under 16, two charges of producing child pornography and one charge of common assault.

[3] Soo v The Queen [2014] VSCA 304 (Weinberg, Whelan and Santamaria JJA).

[4] Soo v The Queen [2015] VSCA 84 (Osborn and Kaye JJA).

[5] Soo v The Queen [2020] HCASL 22 (Bell and Gageler JJ).

[7] Soo v Victoria Legal Aid [2022] VSC 577 ('Reasons of Daly AsJ').

[8] (1988) 165 CLR 543 ('Giannarelli').

[10] [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1 ('D'Orta-Ekenaike').

[11] [2002] 1 AC 615 ('Arthur JS Hall').

[14] Soo v Victoria Legal Aid [2023] VSC 289 ('Reasons of Gorton J').

[15] Reasons of Gorton J, [18]-[19] (footnotes in original).

[16] It is clear that a proceeding that has this effect is an abuse of process - see, eg, Rogers v The Queen [1994] HCA 42; (1994) 181 CLR 251, 256 (Mason CJ), 286 (McHugh J). It has been accepted, in cases involving the immunity of counsel, that a collateral attack, or attempt to impugn, a prior undisturbed legal proceeding can be contrary to good policy because it undermines the system of justice and raises great practical difficulties, as to which see, eg: Rondel v Worsley [1969] 1 AC 191, 249-251 (Lord Morris of Borth-Y-Gest); D'Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid [2005] HCA 12; (2005) 223 CLR 1, 29 [77] (Gleeson CJ, Gummow, Hayne and Heydon JJ).

[17] The question of whether VLA owed him a duty of care would arise. It is not necessary to determine that issue here.

[19] Ibid 679. The gendered language is noted, but retained.

[21] Ibid 29 [77], footnotes omitted.

[22] See rr 64.15(2) and (5) of the Rules, and s 14D(1) of the Supreme Court Act 1986.

[23] R v Carroll (2002) 213 CLR 635, 657 [73]; Batistatos v Roads and Traffic Authority (NSW) [2006] HCA 27; (2006) 226 CLR 256, 264 [7]; GLJ v The Trustees of the Roman Catholic Church for the Diocese of Lismore [2023] HCA 32, [26].

[27] By reason of s 14D(3) of the Supreme Court Act 1986, the determination of the application for leave to appeal is totally without merit and precludes the applicant from any right to apply to have the dismissal of his application for leave to appeal set aside or varied.

Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015

Soo v Victoria Legal Aid [2023] VSCA 330 (20 December 2023)

Soo v Victoria Legal Aid [2023] VSCA 330

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (23 paragraphs)

Parties

Legislation Cited (3)

Cases Cited (8)

Soo v Victoria Legal Aid [2023] VSCA 330 (20 December 2023)