The West Australian Court of Appeal refused to grant Scott Thillagaratnam leave to appeal a decision of both the Legal Profession Complaints Committee (LPCC) and State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) to dismiss his complaints.

It followed an order in late May to direct a registrar to determine whether the court should revoke orders that referred question of leave to a hearing. If it did revoke, the court was to consider and determine the question of whether it should grant leave to appeal.

Justices Robert Mitchell and John Vaughan have now considered the latter, having been satisfied it was in the “interests of justice” to revoke the order to refer the matter to a hearing.

Thillagaratnam accused Darren Zusman, Mark MacLennan and Paul Mendelow of pursuing his daughter’s case and entering into a costs agreement despite knowing there were no prospects of success.

Bennett + Co, the firm Zusman and MacLennan worked for, was retained by the daughter from July to August 2020. They, in turn, engaged Mendelow to review documents and represent the daughter at a November 2020 trial if her claim was arguable.

The retainer was terminated in August 2020.

The daughter made a complaint around this time, but it was withdrawn and replaced with one made by Thillagaratnam.

Her claim proceeded to trial months later and she was successful, but the trial judge noted her victory was likely to be “pyrrhic” – that is, a win at costs too great to have been worthwhile.

VIEW ALL

The LPCC dismissed Thillagaratnam’s complaints on the basis they were misconceived and unreasonable.

Upon review, WASAT supported LPCC’s dismissal, found no substantial injustice would occur if the decision was left unreversed, and refused Thillagaratnam leave to appeal.

Justices Mitchell and Vaughan said Thillagaratnam’s grounds of appeal were “prolix” in that they were lengthy and did not “clearly articulate any question of law” to set aside WASAT’s decision.

“The number and nature of the grounds are such as to impose a significant burden on the court and the respondents in dealing with them,” Justices Mitchell and Vaughan said.

“Our review of the grounds does not disclose any apparent basis on which the tribunal might have erred in dismissing the proceedings.”

They added the refusal of leave to appeal would not “adversely affect any right, duty or liability” of Thillagaratnam because he was “merely a person making a complaint to a regulatory authority who is dissatisfied by the response of the regulatory authority”.

“In these circumstances, there would be no substantial miscarriage of justice in leaving the tribunal’s decision unreversed even if it were assumed to be incorrect,” Justices Mitchell and Vaughan said.

Naomi Neilson

Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly. 

You can email Naomi at: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.