Catchwords:

CONSUMER LAW – application for summary dismissal – claim under Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth) Sch 2, Australian Consumer Law (‘ACL’) for misleading and deceptive conduct – where Applicant’s application for admission as a legal practitioner refused after Respondent formed view that Applicant’s law degree was bogus and issued by a degree mill university – whether Respondent able to be sued under ACL – where Applicant claimed ACL applicable as Respondent was a trading corporation and not an arm of Victorian State on basis that ‘our society ... has always been contractual’ – where Applicant claimed Respondent engaged in trade or commerce – whether claim had no reasonable prospects of success



ADMINISTRATIVE LAW – application for summary dismissal – claim in nature of judicial review for ‘wrongful application of law: retrospective principle’ – whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain claim for misapplication of Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic) – where Applicant claimed misapplication of Victorian law constituted breach of ACL – consideration of claim under ACL as given force by either Commonwealth or Victorian law – where Applicant otherwise claimed jurisdiction conferred by Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)



COSTS – where Applicant claimed costs should not follow summary dismissal on basis of Applicant’s financial circumstances and because of ‘inflammatory’ and ‘scandalous’ nature of Respondent’s evidence – whether grounds articulated as to why costs should not follow event – application for summary dismissal – claim under(Cth) Sch 2,(‘ACL’) for misleading and deceptive conduct – where Applicant’s application for admission as a legal practitioner refused after Respondent formed view that Applicant’s law degree was bogus and issued by a degree mill university – whether Respondent able to be sued under ACL – where Applicant claimed ACL applicable as Respondent was a trading corporation and not an arm of Victorian State on basis that ‘our society ... has always been contractual’ – where Applicant claimed Respondent engaged in trade or commerce – whether claim had no reasonable prospects of success– application for summary dismissal – claim in nature of judicial review for ‘wrongful application of law: retrospective principle’ – whether Court has jurisdiction to entertain claim for misapplication of(Vic) – where Applicant claimed misapplication of Victorian law constituted breach of ACL – consideration of claim under ACL as given force by either Commonwealth or Victorian law – where Applicant otherwise claimed jurisdiction conferred by(Cth) s 39B – whether requisite Federal element – whether claim had no reasonable prospects of success– where Applicant claimed costs should not follow summary dismissal on basis of Applicant’s financial circumstances and because of ‘inflammatory’ and ‘scandalous’ nature of Respondent’s evidence – whether grounds articulated as to why costs should not follow event