Odtojan & Bryl's Judicial Review Court Case: A Summary of the Grounds and Submissions
- Odtojan Bryl Lawyers
- 1 day ago
- 6 min read
Access to court submissions plays a crucial role in ensuring transparency and fairness in the legal process. Currently, the NSW Supreme Court judicial review judgments are reserved. These proceedings were heard on 26 (Bryl) and 27 (Odtojan) November 2025 at the Supreme Court before the presiding acting Judge Griffiths.
For those interested and following this case, this article provides the Plaintiffs' grounds and parties' outline of submissions, essential to understanding this case.
A. The Parties' Submissions
The Plaintiffs' Outline of Submission filed 4 Nov 2025
1.1 The Plaintiffs' submissions are similar, so the following submission in Ms Odtojan's case is provided: Outline of Submissions - ODTOJAN v Law Society of NSW & Council of the LNSW
The Defendants Written Submissions by Senior Counsel Kate Morgan and Counsel Emma Dunlop filed 17 Nov 2025 (Brief Summary):
The following is a brief of the Defendants’ arguments as set out in their written submissions:
Argument 1 - Section 45 operates independently. The Defendants submit that s 45 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) permits refusal of a practising certificate without the need to invoke Chapter 5 disciplinary processes, (despite raising conduct and misconduct allegations) without findings of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, and without referral to NCAT.
Argument 2 - No requirement to establish misconduct. The Defendants contend that a finding or determination of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct is not a statutory precondition to forming an opinion under s 45 that a practitioner is not a fit and proper person.
Argument 3 - Decision made by the Council. The Defendants assert that the Council was the lawful decision-maker, that it met on 29 May 2025, considered the 'Memo to Council' prepared by the Ms Valerie Griswold, Director of the Professional Standards Department/ Legal Regulation dated 23 May 2025, resolving the refusal of the renewal of both the Plaintiffs' practising certificates based on Ms Griswold and PSD own determination of unfitness, and who had already appointed a manager to the legal practice prior to council meeting. They rely on affidavit evidence and the signed notices “for” or “on behalf of” the Council by Ms Griswold.
Argument 4 - Procedural fairness was afforded. The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff was given procedural fairness through correspondence in July 2024, March 2025, and May 2025.
Argument 5 - No bias, bad faith, or predetermination. The Defendants deny any actual or apprehended bias, bad faith, or predetermination.
Argument 6 - Reliance on judicial remarks. The Defendants rely on commentary made by the Justices in the NSW Court of Appeal in an interlocutory leave-to-appeal application hearing involving the Plaintiffs, treating those commentaries as material for the Council’s opinion on unfitness, notwithstanding that no disciplinary findings were made in those proceedings and no proven case to civil standard of proof.
Argument 7 - Alternative remedies available in merits review. The Defendants argue that judicial review relief should be refused because equally convenient alternative remedies exist, namely merits review under s 100 of the Uniform Law in respect of the practising certificate decision, and under s 358 in respect of the manager appointment.
Argument 8 - Notice of Motion was misconceived. The Defendants submit that the Plaintiff’s Notice of Motion to strike out the Response was misconceived. (Note: The Notice of Motion was not pursued because the Registrar ordered it be condensed into the substantive proceedings, rendering it duplicative while the issues remain live in the judicial review.)
In a footnote, referring to Ms Griswold affidavit evidence of her 'Memo to council' dated 23 May 2025 drafting a resolutions for both Plaintiff unfitness and refusal of practising certificates and appointment of manager to legal practice prior to any council meeting that purported to have taken place on 29 May 2025, the footnote raised for the first time the matter of suppression and non-publication orders regarding Ms Griswold's documents in her affidavit the memo to council, documents which form part of the decisions, including correspondences between the parties etc.).
2.1 Case Authorities Relied Upon by the Defendants
Minister for Immigration v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332
Picos v Law Institute of Victoria [2021] VSCA 48
Toth v Director of Public Prosecutions (NSW) [2018] NSWCA 253 at [33]
MN Legal and Management Consultants Pty Ltd v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales; Michail v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1410 at [39]
LPDT v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (2024) 280 CLR 321 at 327 [9] [10]
Seek Justice Pty Ltd v Blue Mountains Local Planning Panel/Blue Mountains City Council; Seek Justice Pty Ltd v Minister for Planning [2025] NSWCA 201 at [43]
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZQHH (2012) 200 FCR 223; [2012] FCAFC 45 at [30]
Martinus Rail Pty Ltd v Qube RE Services (No 2) Pty Ltd [2025] NSWCA 49 at [129] citing Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li (2013) 249 CLR 332 at [67]
Jones v Dunkel (1959) 101 CLR 298
Odtojan v Ford [2023] NSWCA 277 (Note: This very case was referred by the NSWCA to the OLSC; the referral had no outcome. Instead the Plaintiffs were removed from practise for non-disclosure alleged and determined by the Law Society officers/Council. The referral orders of possible breaches of conduct rules was reframed as non-disclosure of the NSWCA referrals in the Plaintiffs' renewal of practising certificate applications where both are conduct issues that fall under Chapter 5 of the Uniform Law and requires NCAT determination. The case authority for non-disclosure during renewal application: Tangsilsat v Council of the Law Society of NSW [2014] NSWSC 1251. Odtojan. v Ford is nevertheless relied upon in the Defendants’ submissions. For contextual background, see the OBL blog post “The Undocumented Truth in Odtojan v Ford, Glynn and Condon SC” )
The Plaintiff's Reply Submission filed 26 Nov 2025.
In Ms Odtojan's case : REPLY Outline of Submissions - ODTOJAN v Law Society of NSW & Council of the LNSW
B. On the Day of Court - Defendants’ Suppression and Non-Publication Application
On the day of the hearing, the Law Society of NSW and its Council sought suppression and non-publication orders in both Plaintiffs’ judicial review proceedings. This application was not foreshadowed earlier in the proceedings. In the lead-up to the hearing, the Defendants departed from existing court orders concerning the preparation of a joint court book by unilaterally preparing two separate court books, including a purported “confidential” court book for materials they sought to suppress.
The Plaintiffs were only notified of this departure on the day the joint court book was due (20 November 2025). No court order had authorised the creation of a confidential court book, and this unilateral approach delayed compliance with the Court’s directions, requiring the Plaintiffs to take steps to ensure the Judge ultimately received a joint court book.
The suppression application relied on an affidavit from Ms Valerie Griswold. Notably, the key documents the Defendants sought to suppress, including draft decisions, memoranda, and reasons, were all authored, approved, or signed by Ms Griswold in her capacity as Director of the Professional Standards Department. In support of the application, reference was made to a video published by Ms Odtojan in which she displayed allegedly tampered court documents.
The focus of the application was not on investigating the substance of those allegations, but on preventing further public disclosure in the current proceedings. The Plaintiffs note that, as legal regulators with statutory responsibilities to protect the administration of justice and the public, the Defendants have obligations to appropriately address allegations of documents tampering or false records by legal practitioners or law firms, including referral obligations where suspected offences arise, rather than raising such concerns for the first time by way of suppression applications during court proceedings.
C. The Plaintiffs' Summons - Grounds
Amended Summons - Grounds - Bryl v Law Society of NSW and Council LSNSW.
Further Documents
See more documents in relation to this matter see previous Blog Post in August 2025:
Find out more about the case of Odtojan v Condon SC, Odtojan v Ford and Odtojan v Glynn.
Disclaimer: This notice is a public interest disclosure, public awareness, and education. Based on the lived experience of lawyers Marie Odtojan and Artem Bryl, witnesses, victims, and whistleblowers who acted lawfully. This post is subject to change where corrections, amendments, or additional information may be required. For queries, please contact: oblawyers.media@gmail.com
Comments