Cresswell v Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales

Thomas Edgar Cresswell sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia from an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Supreme Court had ordered the removal of Cresswell's name from the roll of solicitors based on findings that he had engaged in misconduct. The misconduct alleged involved two charges: first, failing to account for a sum of money received on behalf of a client until after bankruptcy proceedings, and second, improperly using the funds of a benevolent society of which he was honorary treasurer.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether special leave to appeal should be granted from the Supreme Court's decision. The Supreme Court had found both charges of misconduct proved and concluded that Cresswell's conduct rendered him unfit to practice as a solicitor. Cresswell's argument for special leave was that the evidence was consistent with his honesty and that the Court should infer honesty.

Griffith C.J., delivering the judgment of the High Court, stated that the matter was not one for special leave. His Honour emphasised that the High Court's role in considering special leave was not to re-examine the case as if it were the original appellate court. The Court ultimately refused special leave to appeal.