Barristers' Board v Khan - [2001] QCA 92

[2001] QCA 92

COURT OF APPEAL

de JERSEY CJ
WILLIAMS JA
BYRNE J

No 11225 of 2000

BARRISTERS' BOARD Applicant

IFTAKHR IQBAL AHMED KHAN Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 13/03/2001

JUDGMENT

THE CHIEF JUSTICE: The Barristers' Board seeks an order that the respondent's name be removed from the roll of barristers. The respondent was served with the application and the supporting material in January and has failed to appear this morning on the hearing of the application. Neither has he filed material in opposition to the material relied on by the applicant.

The Chairman of the Barristers' Board wrote to the respondent on 29 August 2000 referring to the point taken against him, being a matter of non-disclosure to which I will come, in these terms:

"The Board regards this non-disclosure as very serious, but before taking any further action the Board will provide you with an opportunity to place any material before it which you may consider relevant. If you wish to avail yourself of this opportunity please do so in writing before 29 November 2000. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation from you by that date, the Board may apply to the Court of Appeal to have your name removed from the roll of barristers without further notice to you."

In relation to that, the respondent neither placed material before the Board nor before this Court. The respondent was admitted to practice as a barrister in Queensland on 8 June 2000 under the Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1992.

The respondent carries on practice as a barrister and solicitor in Lautoka, Fiji. In applying for admission in Queensland on 6 June 2000 under the Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act, he relied on his admission to legal practice in Victoria, New South Wales and the Australian Capital Territory. He had, since 1988, been admitted to practice as a solicitor in Queensland.

In the course of that practice as a solicitor, he apparently acted for one Shankar. On 14 November 1998, through his attorney, one Nath, Mr Shankar made a complaint to the professional standards department of the Queensland Law Society to the effect that the respondent was failing to progress his, Mr Shankar's, claim for damages in respect of personal injuries.

It emerged that the respondent had, in respect of that claim, been paid a sum of $35,000 by the relevant insurance company by way of settlement of the claim and that the respondent had deposited that sum into the respondent's personal bank account.

The council of the Law Society suspended the respondent's practising certificate and appointed a receiver over the limited trust property held by him. The respondent unsuccessfully sought to have that suspension lifted.

In communications with the Law Society, he denied Mr Shankar's claim to have received none of the $35,000 insurance payout, going so far as to label Mr Shankar's claim as fraudulent in its conception. It is interesting to note however, one may add, that if there was fraud, then even on the respondent's own account,…

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 Barristers' Board v Khan

Details

AGLC: Barristers' Board v Khan [2001] QCA 92
Case: [2001] QCA 92
Decision Date: 13/03/2001

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of the Barristers' Board v Khan, the Barristers' Board sought an order to remove the respondent, Iftakhar Iqbal Ahmed Khan, from the roll of barristers due to his failure to disclose a complaint against him when applying for admission. The respondent had been admitted to practice as a barrister in Queensland under the Mutual Recognition (Queensland) Act 1992, but had not disclosed a complaint made against him in 1998 when he applied for admission as a barrister. The complaint related to the respondent's conduct as a solicitor in Queensland and alleged that he had failed to progress a claim for damages in respect of personal injuries, and had deposited a $35,000 insurance payout into his personal bank account. The respondent had been suspended from practice as a solicitor, and had been unsuccessful in having that suspension lifted.

The legal issues before the court were whether the respondent's failure to disclose the complaint against him constituted a breach of his obligation to disclose all relevant matters to the admitting authority, and whether this breach was of such significance as to warrant his removal from the roll of barristers. The court found that the respondent had a duty of candour to disclose all relevant matters to the admitting authority, and that his failure to disclose the complaint against him was a serious breach of that duty. The court also found that the respondent's breach was of such significance as to warrant his removal from the roll of barristers, and that the respondent should pay the costs of the proceedings. The court further noted that the legislation under which the respondent was admitted as a barrister ought to be reviewed to ensure that there is sufficient time between the lodgment of the papers seeking registration and the registration becoming effective for the local professional bodies to make inquiries as to the fitness of the applicant to practice in Queensland. The court agreed with the orders proposed by the Chief Justice.

Orders