Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP 201920

The appeal, Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory v LP 201920, was before the Appeal Tribunal concerning a practitioner who was found to have engaged in professional misconduct. The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory sought the practitioner's name be struck from the roll of practitioners, but the Tribunal ordered a sanction instead. The Council then appealed against the sanction, seeking an order that the practitioner's name be struck from the roll of practitioners. The practitioner, in turn, sought an order for costs of the appeal. The key legal issues were whether the Appeal Tribunal had the power to make an order for costs of the appeal, the meaning of 'exceptional circumstances' under the relevant legislation, and the relevance of financial hardship and mental health issues in determining whether an order should be made for costs of the original proceedings.

The Appeal Tribunal held that the requirements of 'exceptional circumstances' existed in this case, and therefore, it would make no order as to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal also considered whether it should make any orders in relation to the costs of the original proceeding. The Tribunal noted that the practitioner had not raised this matter in submissions on the appeal but was willing to proceed on the basis that it had the power to decide the matter. The critical issue was whether there were exceptional circumstances which would warrant an order for costs not being made. The Tribunal found that it was open to the practitioner to query the basis on which the costs order had been made, particularly given the practitioner's offer of settlement.

The Tribunal ordered that there be no order as to the parties' costs of the appeal. The Tribunal was satisfied that the requirements of 'exceptional circumstances' existed in this case, and therefore, it would make no order as to the costs of the appeal proceedings. The Tribunal also found that it was open to the practitioner to query the basis on which the costs order had been made, particularly given the practitioner's offer of settlement.