Council of the NSW Bar Association v Michael Rollinson

The Court was called upon to determine whether a further and more particular injunction should be granted in respect of a barrister, Michael Rollinson, who had already been subject to an injunction restraining him from practising as a legal practitioner. The matter was heard in the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The NSW Bar Association had brought the proceedings against Rollinson, alleging that despite the injunction, he had been engaging in activities that were clearly intended to be the practice of law.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether Rollinson's conduct, despite the initial injunction, demonstrated an intention to engage in the practice of law, thereby justifying a more specific injunction to prevent such practice. The Court had to consider the nature and extent of Rollinson's activities and whether they amounted to the practice of law within the meaning of the initial injunction. Additionally, the Court needed to balance the rights of Rollinson with the need to protect the integrity of the legal profession and the interests of the public.

The Court found that Rollinson's actions, although not amounting to the formal practice of law, were nonetheless intended to facilitate his engagement in legal practice. The Court held that his conduct was in clear disregard of the initial injunction and that the purpose of the injunction was to prevent him from engaging in any activities that could be construed as legal practice. Consequently, the Court granted the more particular injunction, specifying that Rollinson was prohibited from engaging in any activities that could be seen as the practice of law, including providing legal advice or appearing in court. The Court emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and the necessity of enforcing the injunction to protect the public and the profession from potential harm.