Manager appointed to practitioner’s law firm requested account information
Upon finding insufficient prospects of success in the proposed grounds of appeal, the Victorian Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal declined leave to appeal against an order for a legal practitioner to provide the details of an email account he used.
On 15 August 2025, upon the Victorian Legal Services Board’s application, the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal found the applicant in Guss v Victorian Legal Services Board [2026] VSCA 167 guilty of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct in his legal practice.
On 12 December 2025, the tribunal cancelled the applicant’s practising certificate, disqualified him from applying for another certificate for five years, and recommended the removal of his name from the Victorian Supreme Court’s roll of practitioners.
On 16 December 2025, the board appointed a manager for the applicant’s law firm under the powers in s 334 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law.
The manager requested the account login details and the password associated with the email address the applicant used for his legal practice, as well as access to client files and other materials utilised in his practice. The applicant did not give the account details or comply with other requests.
After notifying the applicant of its intention to do so if he kept failing to comply with the manager’s requests, the board initiated Victorian Supreme Court proceedings and applied for Practice Court orders requiring the applicant to give the manager the email account details and various documents.
On 28 May 2026, Justice Harris ordered the applicant to provide the email account details to the manager. The applicant failed to do so.
On 17 June 2026, Justice Finanzio found the applicant in contempt of court due to his “calculating, deliberate, wilful and contumacious” refusal to follow Justice Harris’s orders. That same date, the applicant applied for leave to appeal from Justice Harris’s 28 May 2026 orders.
First, regarding whether Justice Harris’s orders were beyond her power, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria found the judge entitled to issue the orders without a fresh review of the evidentiary material filed in the proceeding and relied on by Justice Gray and Justice Hannon.
The court explained that Justice Gray considered ample, undisputed evidence to determine that the applicant had contravened the Uniform Law by obstructing the manager’s endeavours to acquire the information necessary to fulfill his duties. The court noted that the parties did not dispute that:
Second, the court ruled that the case did not engage s 91 of the Evidence Act 2008 because Justice Gray’s, Justice Hannon’s, and Justice Harris’s hearings and decisions all occurred in the same proceeding. The court explained that s 91 did not prevent a judge from relying on findings made in a hearing at a later date in the same proceeding.
Third, the court held that Justice Harris did not need to consider ss 336 and 362 of the Uniform Law afresh.
Fourth, the court rejected the applicant’s argument that Justice Harris failed to hear his application. The court concluded that the judge adopted procedures open to her, considered the application, and ultimately chose to dismiss it.
