Doolan v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board - [2016] QCAT 98

CITATION:	Doolan v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board [2016] QCAT 98
PARTIES:	RICHARD DOOLAN (Applicant)
v
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD (Respondent)
APPLICATION NUMBER:	OCR101-13
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
HEARING DATE:	24 February 2016
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Carmody J
DELIVERED ON:	28 April 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
ORDERS MADE:		THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT: 1. The respondent is to make a declaration under s 32(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), to the effect that the applicant’s mental health (in its current state) will not, without more, adversely affect its assessment as to whether he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – FIT AND PROPER PERSONS – where the applicant meets the academic and practical training requirements for admission as a legal practitioner in Queensland – where the applicant had applied unsuccessfully on a number of occasions to the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board for a declaration that a suitability matter would not, without more, adversely affect the Board's assessment as to whether he was a fit and proper person for admission – where the applicant had frankly disclosed a history of mental illness and related antisocial behaviour – where the Court of Appeal allowed the appeal and referred the applicant’s application to QCAT under s 32(3)(b) for direction – whether the declaration sought by the applicant under s 32 should be made Anti-Discrimination Act 1991 (Qld) s 7 Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth) Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth) Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) ss 3, 5, 6, 9, 21, 27, 28, 30, 31, 32, 35, 38, 39, 44, 46, 49, 51, 52, 53, 85, 87 Supreme Court of Queensland Act1991 (Qld) s 85 Re B [1981] 2 NSWLR 372 Re B(a solicitor) [1986] VR 695 CDJ v VAJ [1998] 197 CLR 172 Clyne v New South Wales Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186 Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188 G v G [1985] FLR 894 Re Gillian Sheppard [2007] QCA, 19 March 2007 Re Harrison [1992] SASC, 23 December 1992 Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales v Meagher (1909) 9 CLR 655 Jackson v Legal Practitioners Admission Board [2007] NSWCA 289 Re Joseph Sleiman and Australian Securities Investments Commission [2007] AATA 1383 Law Society of New South Wales v Foreman (1994) 34 NSWLR 408 Law Society of New South Wales v Pearson [2005] NSWADT 206 Legal Practice Board v Mullally [2003] WASC 225 Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Jones (2010) 272 LSJS 529 Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Trueman [2003] SASC 58 Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee v Tomlinson [2006] WASC 211 Pop v Taylor [2015] FCCA 1720 Queensland Law Society v Wakeling [2009] QCA 42 Rich v Australian Securities and Investments Commission (2004) 220 CLR 129 Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 239 Re Wolstonecroft and Companies Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (1998) 54 ALD…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Doolan v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2016] QCAT 98
Decision Date: 28 April 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Doolan versus the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, the applicant sought a declaration from the Board that his history of mental illness would not adversely affect their assessment of his suitability for admission as a legal practitioner in Queensland. The applicant had already met the academic and practical training requirements for admission but had been unsuccessful in obtaining a declaration that his history of mental illness and related antisocial behaviour would not, without more, adversely affect the Board's assessment of his fitness to be admitted. The Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) was tasked with determining whether the declaration sought by the applicant under section 32 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) should be made. The Legal Practitioners Admissions Board argued that the applicant's past conduct and history of mental illness raised concerns about his suitability for admission.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant's history of mental illness and related antisocial behaviour would, without more, adversely affect the Board's assessment of his fitness to be admitted as a legal practitioner. The Tribunal had to weigh the applicant's current mental health status and the absence of any recent incidents of antisocial behaviour against his past history of mental illness and related conduct. The Tribunal also needed to consider the principles of natural justice and procedural fairness in making its decision. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine whether the Board's assessment of the applicant's fitness to be admitted was justified based on the evidence presented.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's current mental health status was stable and that there had been no recent incidents of antisocial behaviour. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had frankly disclosed his history of mental illness and related antisocial behaviour and had taken steps to address these issues. The Tribunal considered that the Board's assessment of the applicant's fitness to be admitted was based on outdated information and did not take into account the applicant's current mental health status and absence of recent incidents of antisocial behaviour. The Tribunal found that the Board's assessment was not justified and that the applicant's history of mental illness and related antisocial behaviour would not, without more, adversely affect its assessment of his fitness to be admitted.

Accordingly, the Tribunal ordered that the Board make a declaration under section 32(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), to the effect that the applicant’s mental health (in its current state) will not, without more, adversely affect its assessment as to whether he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Orders

Orders of the court

THE TRIBUNAL ORDERS THAT:

1. The respondent is to make a declaration under s 32(3)(a) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), to the effect that the applicant’s mental health (in its current state) will not, without more, adversely affect its assessment as to whether he is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld).

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.