Ejueyitsi v Board of Examiners

The case of *Ejueyitsi v Board of Examiners* concerned an applicant seeking admission to legal practice in Australia based on overseas qualifications. The applicant had initially been advised that his Bachelor of Science in Law from Suffield University in the United States was recognised, leading the Board of Examiners to resolve to recognise his qualification, subject to him undertaking further study. However, this accreditation was later withdrawn, and the Board revoked its earlier resolution. The applicant was subsequently informed of this revocation and referred to provisions in the Supreme Court Rules concerning appeals against decisions of the Board. The matter came before the Court on an application for leave to appeal against the Board's decision.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant possessed a statutory or rule-based right of appeal against the decisions made by the Board of Examiners concerning the assessment of his overseas qualifications. The Court was required to determine if such a right existed, either by statute or the rules of court, as no such right arises at common law. The Court also considered the applicant's delays in pursuing his appeal and whether these delays presented an obstacle to the grant of leave.

The Court reasoned that there is no inherent right of appeal against decisions made by the Board of Examiners regarding the assessment of overseas qualifications for interstate admission. Such a right must be expressly created by legislation or court rules. The Court found that the applicant had not demonstrated the existence of such a right. Furthermore, the Court noted that even if a right of appeal existed, the applicant's significant delays in bringing the matter before the Court presented a substantial impediment to obtaining leave to appeal.

Consequently, the Court refused permission for leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal. The Court indicated that the applicant's delays were an insurmountable obstacle to granting leave, and had the application for leave not been dismissed, the notice of appeal would have been struck out on those grounds.