IN THE SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA	Not Restricted	
AT MELBOURNE
Common Law Division
Judicial Review and Appeals List

S ECI 2019 04627

JOEL LORENSZ BELING	Applicant 	
		
v 		
		
VICTORIAN LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER	Respondent 	

---

JUDGE:	Ginnane J	
WHERE HELD:	Melbourne	
DATE OF HEARING:	On the papers	
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	19 June 2023	
CASE MAY BE CITED AS:	Beling v Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (No 2) (Costs judgment)	
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2023] VSC 338	

---

COSTS – Appeal from Judicial Registrar’s orders dismissing an application to appeal VCAT’s orders more than two years out of time – Appeal dismissed – Costs follow the event – Applicant to pay the respondent’s costs on a standard basis.

---

APPEARANCES:
	Counsel	Solicitors	
For the Applicant	In person (written submissions)		
			
For the Respondent	Mr MG McNamara (written submissions) 	White Cleland Pty Ltd 	

HIS HONOUR:
1	On 23 April 2023, I dismissed Mr Joel Beling’s appeals from a Judicial Registrar’s orders refusing him an extension of time, in which to commence this proceeding, which sought leave to appeal orders of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal finding him guilty of disciplinary charges of professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. Mr Beling had filed a summons for a directions hearing to appeal the Tribunal’s orders more than two years out of time.
2	The parties made written submissions about costs.
3	The respondent, the Victorian Legal Services Commissioner (‘the Commissioner’) seeks orders that:
The applicant pay the respondent’s costs of and incidental to this proceeding, including any reserved costs and including the respondent’s costs of and incidental to the applicant’s summonses filed 26 August 2020 and 20 May 2022, on a standard basis such costs to be assessed by the Costs Court in default of agreement.
4	In the two summonses, to which the Commissioner’s proposed orders refer, Mr Beling sought various interlocutory orders. Those two summonses were dismissed.
5	Mr Beling submitted that the usual rule as to costs should not apply and that, despite his proceeding being dismissed, he was entitled to an order that the Commissioner, or her legal representatives, pay his disbursements personally, including any reserved disbursements on a standard basis. In the alternative, there should be no order as to costs. Failing this, Mr Beling sought an order under the Appeal Costs Act 1998 to be issued for what he described as the Commissioner’s ‘errors and misconduct’. 
6	To justify these orders, Mr Beling alleged that the Commissioner had failed to comply with the Civil Procedure Act 2010, failed to negotiate costs in good faith, and engaged in serious misconduct. He argued that the Court had no jurisdiction to hear and determine some of the dominant issues in dispute which alleged misconduct by judicial officers. He submitted that he had been successful in obtaining a significant settlement offer from the Commissioner. The Court’s judgment had given little, or no, analysis or consideration of the facts and significant authorities, upon which he had relied, including in relation to alleged conspiracies involving judicial officers. 
7	In my opinion, Mr Beling should pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceeding. He was unsuccessful in his application and none of the matters he has raised justify any other order. His submissions mainly repeat arguments that he unsuccessfully made at the hearing. He continues to make serious allegations against people with no evidence at all to support them. These allegations have been rejected by courts on a number of occasions. For instance, upon Mr Beling unsuccessfully seeking to appeal interlocutory orders that I made in this proceeding and orders made in related proceedings, the Court of Appeal ordered that he pay the Commissioner’s costs on an indemnity basis stating:
While the applicant was self-represented, nevertheless, he was admitted to practise as a legal practitioner, and he has practised as a legal practitioner for a number of years. It is a matter of particular concern that, as pointed out in our substantive judgments, the applicant made a number of very serious allegations, which were wholly unsupported, and were without any evidentiary or other foundation, including allegations of fraud, dishonesty and falsification of documents that had been lodged with VCAT. In our reasons in the first appeal, we noted that a significant number of allegations and propositions, advanced by the applicant, were wholly lacking in evidentiary support, and we concluded that a number of the bases upon which the applicant had sought leave to appeal, were quite hopeless. Further, the application for an extension of time and the application for a stay were entirely without merit.
As a legal practitioner, the applicant ought to have known, and been acutely aware of, his obligation not to advance propositions in court which allege dishonesty, fraud or the like without an appropriate and sound factual foundations, and of his obligation not to advance submissions to the Court that were devoid of merit.
In those circumstances, it is appropriate that the Court should order that the applicant pay the respondent’s costs in each matter on an indemnity basis. 
8	Mr Beling has continued to make and widen his unsubstantiated allegations making accusations of misconduct, despite courts repeatedly telling him that he has not produced evidence to support them. 
9	The Commissioner is entitled to her costs of the proceeding, including of the two summonses. There is no basis for awarding Mr Beling a certificate under the Appeal Costs Act.
10	I will make an order that Mr Beling pay the Commissioner’s costs of the proceeding, including the costs of the two summonses, on a standard basis.