Flowers v Finlayson

The appeal concerned a disciplinary complaint brought by Mr Flowers against Mr Finlayson, a legal practitioner, before the Legal Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal in South Australia. The Tribunal had dismissed all charges laid by Mr Flowers, finding him to be an unreliable witness and rejecting his allegations of dishonesty and falsification of records. Mr Flowers appealed this decision to the Supreme Court of South Australia.

The primary legal issues before the Supreme Court were whether the Tribunal had erred in its findings of fact, particularly regarding the credibility of Mr Flowers and the authenticity of documents, and whether the Tribunal had been validly constituted. Mr Flowers contended that the appointment of the Tribunal members was invalid because Ms Pyke QC, who nominated them, had a conflict of interest and therefore failed to comply with her obligations under the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act 1995.

The Supreme Court, in dismissing the appeal, upheld the Tribunal's findings. The Court agreed that the Tribunal was entitled to prefer Mr Finlayson's evidence and rely on contemporaneous records, finding no basis to challenge the Tribunal's assessment of Mr Flowers' credibility. Regarding the appointment of the Tribunal, the Court noted that the Tribunal itself had previously considered and rejected Mr Flowers' argument, concluding that the Public Sector (Honesty and Accountability) Act did not apply and that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to inquire into the validity of its own appointment. Mr Flowers had been offered the opportunity to pursue judicial review of Ms Pyke's decision but had not done so.

The appeal was dismissed, with the Court affirming the decision of the Tribunal.