APPLICATION BY HOFFMAN FOR THE GRANT OF AN EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO RULE 11(3) OF THE - [1999] NTSC 136

IN THE FULL COURT
OF THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
No. LP7 of 1999 (9904663)
NTSC136
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION
BY DAVID ANTHONY HOFFMAN FOR
THE GRANT OF AN EXEMPTION
PURSUANT TO RULE 11(3) OF THE
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS RULES

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & BAILEY JJ
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 22 June 1999)
MARTIN CJ
BAILEY J:
We have had the benefit of reading the draft judgement of Mildren J. We
agree with the reasons for judgement and the proposal that the matter be
adjourned for further submissions as to the precise form of the orders.
MILDREN J:

This is an application pursuant to r11(3) of the Legal Practitioners Rules for
the grant of an exemption from the practical requirements of the Rules
relating to the admission of legal practitioners.
The applicant is a resident of the State of Queensland. On 25 October 1990,
after what he describes in his affidavit as “twenty years experience in the
industrial relations field”, the applicant was appointed a Commissioner of
the Australian Industrial Relations Commission. Prior to this time, the
applicant deposes that he practised extensively as an industrial advocate and
negotiator. The applicant does not otherwise depose to his qualifications
and experience prior to 1990 in any detail. In an affidavit sworn by John
Norman West, one of Her Majesty’s Counsel in and for the States of New
South Wales, Victoria, South Australia, and Western Australia, and for the
Australian Capital Territory, the deponent states that he has worked with the
applicant as a colleague in matters before the Industrial Tribunal, now
known as the Australian Industrial Relations Commission, for four years,
commencing some twenty-eight years ago. In a letter addressed to the
Secretary of the Legal Practitioners Admission Board written by Ms
Catherine Arnold, Barrister-at-law, of Brisbane, which is exhibit I to the
applicant’s affidavit of 31 December 1998, Ms Arnold advises the Board
that she has known the applicant since 1987, that at that time she practised
as a solicitor in private practice in Queensland, and until his appointment,
she briefed the applicant regularly to appear in matters before the Australian
and Queensland Industrial Relations Commissions. It appears from Ms
Arnold’s letter that from 1976 until his appointment to the Commission, the
applicant lectured in industrial relations and advocacy on a part time basis at
Universities, Colleges of Advanced Education and TAFE Colleges, (she
does not say where); that the applicant obtained a Bachelor of Arts degree
majoring in Industrial Relations and Economics conferred, apparently in
1988 (she does not say by which institution); that from 1980 – 1990, the
applicant had served as a committee member, President and National Vice
President, of the Industrial Relations Society of Queensland; that, since
1976, the applicant has been a fellow of the National Institute of
Accountants and Chairman of the National Investigation Committee, (but it
does not appear what those bodies may be), and that he was formerly
National and Divisional Counsellor and State President of…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading APPLICATION BY HOFFMAN FOR THE GRANT OF AN EXEMPTION PURSUAN...

Details

AGLC: APPLICATION BY HOFFMAN FOR THE GRANT OF AN EXEMPTION PURSUANT TO RULE 11(3) OF THE [1999] NTS 136
Case: [1999] NTSC 136
Decision Date: 22 June 1999

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves an application by David Anthony Hoffman seeking exemption from the practical requirements of the Legal Practitioners Rules for admission as a legal practitioner. The application was heard in the Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. Hoffman, a resident of Queensland, applied for exemption from the practical requirements of the Rules to allow him to be admitted as a legal practitioner. Hoffman had extensive experience in industrial relations, having been appointed a Commissioner of the Australian Industrial Relations Commission in 1990. The Legal Practitioners Admission Board had certified that Hoffman had completed the academic requirements for admission but had not met the practical requirements. The primary issue before the Court was whether Hoffman's extensive experience as an industrial advocate and Commissioner qualified him for exemption from the practical requirements of the Rules.

The Court considered Hoffman's experience and training, noting that he had achieved a depth of training and experience beyond that of the average newly admitted practitioner. However, the Court found that Hoffman's experience was in a narrow field and that he lacked practical experience suitable to qualify him as a solicitor. The Court concluded that Hoffman should be granted a partial exemption, requiring him to either serve six months of articles or complete parts of a suitable Practical Legal Training (PLT) course to gain the necessary experience and training he lacked. The Court adjourned the matter to allow Hoffman to present further information and hear submissions on the precise form of the orders.

The Court's decision was that Hoffman's application for a complete exemption should be refused, but he should be granted a partial exemption. The matter was adjourned for further submissions on the precise form of the orders.

Orders