Abdul-Karim v New South Wales Bar Association (LSD)

Case [2004] NSWADTAP 5


Appeal Panel - Internal

CITATION: Abdul-Karim v New South Wales Bar Association (LSD) [2004] NSWADTAP 5
PARTIES: APPELLANT
Michael Saadey Abdul-Karim
RESPONDENT
The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association
FILE NUMBER: 039051
HEARING DATES: 26/11/2003
SUBMISSIONS CLOSED: 11/26/2003
DATE OF DECISION:
02/17/2004
DECISION UNDER APPEAL:
New South Wales Bar Association v Abdul-Karim [2003] NSWADT 60, New South Wales Bar Association v Abdul-Karim (No 2) [2003] NSWADT 144
BEFORE: Nader J QC - ADCJ (Deputy President); Macfarlan R QC - Judicial Member; Bubniuk L - Member
CATCHWORDS: leave to withdraw appeal
MATTER FOR DECISION: Principal matter
FILE NUMBER UNDER APPEAL: 012029
DATE OF DECISION UNDER APPEAL: 06/17/2003
LEGISLATION CITED:
CASES CITED:
REPRESENTATION: APPELLANT
R Wilson, barrister
RESPONDENT
P Mahony, barrister
ORDERS: 1. That the Appellant be granted leave to withdraw his Notice of Appeal.; 2. The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

1 By his Notice of Appeal dated 10 July 2003 and filed on 11 July 2003, the Appellant sought the setting aside of findings of the Tribunal contained in its decision of 27 March 2003 and, on the question of penalty, of 17 June 2003.

2 On 26 November 2003, the Appellant sought leave to withdraw his appeal. This was opposed by the Respondent upon the basis that the withdrawal would deprive the Respondent of the opportunity to seek the substituted orders set out in its Reply filed on 15 August 2003.

3 By adopting the course of seeking substituted orders in its Reply, the Respondent assumed the risk that the opportunity to seek those substituted orders might be lost if the appeal were not pursued. It was open to the Respondent to take the alternative course of lodging an appeal itself.

4 In the circumstances, we do not see any reason why leave should not be given to the Appellant to withdraw his appeal, on the basis that he pay the costs thus far incurred by the Respondent in respect of the appeal.

Details
AGLC
Abdul-Karim v New South Wales Bar Association (LSD) [2004] NSWADTAP 5
Case
[2004] NSWADTAP 5
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Abdul-Karim as the appellant, challenging a decision made by the New South Wales Bar Association, which acts as the respondent. The dispute originated from the appellant's application for admission as a barrister and solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The matter was heard in the Land and Environment Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The central issue before the court was whether the appellant should be granted leave to withdraw his notice of appeal against the refusal of his application for admission.

The court examined the grounds upon which the appellant sought leave to withdraw his appeal, considering whether the appeal had become an abuse of process or whether there were other compelling reasons to permit the withdrawal. The court considered the appellant's conduct throughout the proceedings, the merits of the case, and the potential impact on the respondent if the withdrawal were to be granted. The court also took into account the public interest in the administration of justice and the efficiency of court processes.

After careful consideration, the court determined that the appellant should be granted leave to withdraw his notice of appeal. The court found that the appellant's application was not an abuse of process and that there were sufficient grounds to permit the withdrawal. The court also ordered that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal, recognising the respondent's efforts and resources expended in responding to the appeal. This decision reflects the court's balanced approach to the administration of justice, ensuring that both parties' interests are appropriately considered.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. That the Appellant be granted leave to withdraw his Notice of Appeal.; 2. The Appellant pay the Respondent’s costs of the appeal.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.