AB v Law Society of New South Wales

In AB v Law Society of New South Wales, the plaintiff, a solicitor, appealed against the Law Society of New South Wales' decision to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The dispute centred on an allegation that the plaintiff had falsely witnessed a signature on a passport application at the request of another solicitor. The Law Society's decision to commence proceedings was challenged on the grounds that it failed to extend procedural fairness to the plaintiff and did not adequately consider alternatives to initiating disciplinary action. The case ultimately reached the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was asked to review the Law Society's decision under the Judicial Review Act 1990 (NSW).

The court was tasked with determining whether the Law Society had failed to provide the plaintiff with procedural fairness by not disclosing the statutory declarations of the other solicitor involved, thereby depriving the plaintiff of the opportunity to make submissions about the other solicitor's credibility. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the Law Society had failed to consider alternatives to initiating disciplinary proceedings and whether it had misconceived its function by asking itself the wrong question. The adequacy of the reasons provided by the Law Society for finding that the plaintiff's conduct amounted to professional misconduct was also scrutinised.

The court found that the Law Society had indeed failed to afford procedural fairness to the plaintiff by not disclosing the statutory declarations. The court held that the Law Society did not consider alternatives to initiating proceedings, and had asked itself the wrong question in determining whether to commence disciplinary action. Furthermore, the reasons provided by the Law Society for finding that the plaintiff's conduct amounted to professional misconduct were deemed inadequate. Consequently, the court quashed the Law Society's decision and remitted the matter back to the Law Society for reconsideration.

In light of the findings, the court ordered that the Law Society reconsider the matter, taking into account the need to extend procedural fairness to the plaintiff, consider alternatives to initiating disciplinary proceedings, and provide adequate reasons for any decision made. The court did not make any further orders regarding the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff, leaving that matter for the Law Society to determine on the basis of the court's findings and directions.