The Court held that VCAT, in exercising its broad discretion under s 50(3) of the VCAT Act to refuse a stay of a decision not to renew a solicitor's practising certificate, was not required to identify with precision the specific future contravening conduct or resulting harm to the public; it was sufficient to find a pattern of non-compliance and draw a reasonable inference of future risk. The Court also held that the consideration of whether refusal of a stay would render the review nugatory is not, as a matter of law, the 'most important' or 'dominant' factor in stay applications — the weight of each consideration depends on the facts and statutory context, and the protective objectives of the Legal Profession Uniform Law may justify the public interest overriding even substantial personal and financial consequences to the applicant. Leave to appeal was granted but the appeal was dismissed.
The full text is available to signed-in members.