Bechara v The Law Society

In Bechara v The Law Society, the applicant, Mr Bechara, sought accreditation under the Law Society of New South Wales’ specialist accreditation scheme. Following an unsuccessful peer interview, he was denied accreditation and subsequently asked to re-submit his written materials for reassessment. He claimed that the Society had impliedly warranted that his written materials would be retained to allow for a proper reassessment to take place. The dispute was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether an implied term existed in the contract between Mr Bechara and the Law Society, whereby the Society would retain the applicant's written materials to ensure a fair reassessment process. The applicant argued that without such a term, the reassessment process would be unfair, as it would not be possible to re-assess the applicant on the basis of their written materials.

The court held that the applicant's submissions were not supported by authority and, further, that there was no implied term in the contract that the Society would retain the applicant's written materials for reassessment. The court found that the applicant had not provided any evidence or authority to support the existence of such a term, and that the contract did not contain any express provision for the retention of written materials for reassessment purposes. The court further held that the applicant's argument was contrary to the plain meaning of the contract, which provided for the applicant to re-submit their written materials for reassessment, without any guarantee that the original materials would be retained.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the applicant's claim. The court held that there was no implied term in the contract between Mr Bechara and the Law Society that the Society would retain the applicant's written materials for reassessment purposes. The court further held that the applicant's argument was contrary to the plain meaning of the contract, which provided for the applicant to re-submit their written materials for reassessment, without any guarantee that the original materials would be retained. The court dismissed the application with costs.