Chang v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

The appellant, Christina Marie Chang, appealed against the State Administrative Tribunal's findings that she had engaged in professional misconduct and against the penalty and costs orders made against her by the Tribunal. The Tribunal had found that the appellant knowingly made false and misleading statements to her client and the Magistrates Court with the intention of misleading them. It also found that the appellant failed to respond to notification letters and summonses issued by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The appellant's appeals were dismissed by the operation of a springing order when she failed to file an appellant's case which complied with the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) within the time required by the springing order. The appellant applied for an extension of time in which to comply with the springing order. The Court was not satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to grant the extension application. The minute of the appellant's case which the appellant proposed to file if an extension was granted did not comply with the Rules, and did not appear to raise any reasonably arguable grounds of appeal. In all the circumstances, the Court was not satisfied that the appellant would be able to file and serve a compliant appellant's case within a reasonable time if a further extension of time were to be granted. The Court dismissed the appellant's application for an extension of time.