Ezekiel-Hart v Council of the Law Society of the Act

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory heard two proceedings, ACTCA 36 of 2022 and ACTCA 41 of 2022, brought by Emmanuel Ezekiel-Hart against the Council of the Law Society of the ACT. The dispute concerned Mr. Ezekiel-Hart's complaint of racial discrimination, alleging that the Council had unduly delayed the processing of his application for a practising certificate due to his race, a delay he contrasted with the timely issuance of certificates to "white lawyers" who had faced professional misconduct or criminal convictions. Although his application was ultimately refused, Mr. Ezekiel-Hart maintained that the alleged discriminatory delay itself warranted a remedy.

The legal issues before the Court were whether an appeal from a single judge's refusal to grant leave to appeal an ACAT Appeal Tribunal decision was competent, and if so, whether leave to appeal should be granted. This involved determining if the proposed grounds of appeal identified any arguable error in the primary judgment, which had refused leave to appeal the ACAT Appeal Tribunal's decision to strike out Mr. Ezekiel-Hart's discrimination complaint as an abuse of process. The Court was required to consider the principles governing the grant of leave to appeal interlocutory decisions, particularly those where the refusal of leave effectively ends the substantive proceedings.

The Court reasoned that the appeal in ACTCA 36 of 2022 was incompetent as it was filed without the required leave. Regarding the application for leave to appeal in ACTCA 41 of 2022, the Court applied the established principles for granting leave from an interlocutory decision, which require the applicant to demonstrate that the decision is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration or that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The Court noted that greater caution is generally exercised when considering appeals from decisions refusing leave to appeal. After reviewing the numerous grounds of appeal advanced by Mr. Ezekiel-Hart, the Court found them to be repetitive and lacking in merit, failing to identify any arguable error in the primary judge's reasoning.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the appeal in ACTCA 36 of 2022 be struck out as incompetent. Leave to appeal in ACTCA 41 of 2022 was refused. In both proceedings, Mr. Ezekiel-Hart was ordered to pay the respondent's costs.