This short video shows how 12 grounds in our judicial review proceedings were conceptualised into a single question in the judgment of Acting Justice Griffiths of the NSW Supreme Court (a similar approach appears in Mr Bryl’s judgment). That question does not reflect any of our pleaded grounds. It was never raised by either party, never argued, and never ventilated. Yet, it appears as the central framing of the judgment.

NSW Supreme Court Judicial Review Update. Odtojan and Bryl Two Australian lawyers and their law firm rendered “unfit” without any disciplinary proceedings, without NCAT determination, and without an independent decision-maker. Allegations and conduct issues were raised and determined by the same regulatory bodies, Law Society of NSW contrary to the disciplinary framework mandated by the Legal Profession Uniform Law. Raises serious concerns about due process, procedural fairne