Legal Research
Cases
Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

Case [2021] HCASL 112

Jurisdiction

Special Leave to Appeal

Costs

Administrative Law

Type to search within this case.

CHANG
v
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
[2021] HCASL 112
P1/2021

The applicant has not identified a question of law sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal against the unanimous decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Buss P, Murphy and Mitchell JJA) dismissing the applicant's appeal against orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal on 13 September 2017 and 7 November 2018 and it would not be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of this case to grant special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman

17 June 2021

Details

AGLC: Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2021] HCASL 112
Case: [2021] HCASL 112
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Chang, sought special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia, which had dismissed the applicant's appeal against orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal. The orders in question related to disciplinary action taken against the applicant by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, arising from complaints regarding the applicant's conduct as a legal practitioner. The Court of Appeal had upheld the findings and orders of the State Administrative Tribunal, and the applicant sought to challenge that decision by applying for special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant had identified a question of law sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Special leave to appeal is a discretionary remedy that allows a party to appeal to the High Court where the appeal presents a question of law of general public importance, or where the Court of Appeal has made an error of law. In this case, the Court had to determine whether the question of law raised by the applicant was of sufficient importance to warrant the intervention of the High Court. The Court also had to consider whether granting special leave would be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of the case.

In dismissing the application for special leave to appeal, the Court held that the applicant had not identified a question of law sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave. The Court found that the appeal did not raise a question of law of general public importance, nor was there an error of law in the decision of the Court of Appeal. The Court further found that granting special leave would not be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of the case. The Court noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the decision of the Court of Appeal had caused, or was likely to cause, substantial injustice. The Court also noted that the appeal had been fully argued before the Court of Appeal, and that there were no new facts or evidence that had come to light since the decision of the Court of Appeal.

The Court therefore dismissed the application for special leave to appeal, with costs. The Court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order to that effect. This decision brings to a close the applicant's attempt to challenge the disciplinary action taken against him by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee, and affirms the orders made by the State Administrative Tribunal and upheld by the Court of Appeal.

Orders