Heedes v Legal Practice Board

Link copied
Case Copied 36 min read

HEEDES -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2005] WASCA 166



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2005] WASCA 166
THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
Case No:FUL:185/200425 JULY 2005
Coram:OWEN JA
WHEELER JA
ROBERTS-SMITH JA		31/08/05
24Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Appeal dismissed
B
PDF Version
Parties:ARTHUR HEEDES
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD

Catchwords:
Appeal
Contempt
Non­certified person engaging in legal practice
Bias
Whether reasonable apprehension of bias
Comments made by different judicial officer at interlocutory hearing
Integrity of process

Legislation:
Nil

Case References:
Kola v District Court of South Australia [2001] SASC 268
Kwan v Kang & 2 Ors [2003] NSWCA 336
Legal Practice Board v Heedes [2004] WASC 260
Livesy v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
McCreed v The Queen (2003) 27 WAR 554
R v Eades (No 2) (1991) 6 WAR 532
R v Lovelady; Ex parte Attorney-General [1982] WAR 65
R v Sussex Justices; Ex parte McCarthy [1924] 1 KB 256
R v Watson; Ex parte Armstrong (1976) 136 CLR 248
Re JRL; Ex parte CJL (1986) 161 CLR 342
Ruffles v Chilman (1997) 17 WAR 1
S v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia (2004) 29 WAR 173
Southern Equities Corporation Ltd (In liq) v Bond & Ors (2000) 78 SASR 339
Webb v The Queen (1993) 181 CLR 41
Witham v Holloway (1995) 183 CLR 525
Ebner v Official Trustee in Bankruptcy (2000) 205 CLR 337
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (2002) 210 CLR 438
Johnson v Johnson (2000) 201 CLR 488
R v S (RD) [1997] 3 SCR 484
Re Polites; Ex parte Hoyts Corporation Pty Ltd (No 2) (1991) 173 CLR 78

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : HEEDES -v- LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2005] WASCA 166 CORAM : OWEN JA
    WHEELER JA
    ROBERTS-SMITH JA
HEARD : 25 JULY 2005 DELIVERED : 31 AUGUST 2005 FILE NO/S : FUL 185 of 2004 BETWEEN : ARTHUR HEEDES
    Appellant

    AND

    LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
    Respondent


ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : MCKECHNIE J

Citation : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- HEEDES [2004] WASC 260

File No : CIV 2062 of 2004




(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Appeal - Contempt - Non­certified person engaging in legal practice - Bias - Whether reasonable apprehension of bias - Comments made by different judicial officer at interlocutory hearing - Integrity of process




Legislation:

Nil




Result:

Appeal dismissed




Category: B


Representation:


Counsel:


    Appellant : Mr N J Mullany
    Respondent : Mr B J H Goetze


Solicitors:

    Appellant : In person
    Respondent : Minter Ellison



Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Kola v District Court of South Australia [2001] SASC 268
Kwan v Kang & 2 Ors [2003] NSWCA 336
Legal Practice Board v Heedes [2004] WASC 260
Livesy v New South Wales Bar Association (1983) 151 CLR 288
McCreed v The Queen (2003) 27 WAR 554
R v Eades (No 2) (1991)…
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Heedes v Legal Practice 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
[2005] WASCA 166
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Heedes v Legal Practice Board, the respondent, a legal practice board, sought to enforce a contempt order against the appellant, Heedes, for engaging in legal practice while not being a certified person. The dispute came before the court of appeal, which was tasked with determining whether the original decision was tainted by bias and whether the integrity of the process was compromised. The court was required to decide if the comments made by a different judicial officer during an interlocutory hearing created a reasonable apprehension of bias, and whether these comments affected the integrity of the process.

The court found that the comments made by the other judicial officer did not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. The comments were made in the context of an interlocutory hearing and were not related to the merits of the case. Furthermore, the court found that the integrity of the process was not compromised as the appellant was given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and the evidence was carefully considered. The court held that the decision of the original tribunal was not affected by any alleged bias or procedural unfairness.

As a result, the appeal was dismissed and the contempt order against the appellant was upheld. The court confirmed that engaging in legal practice without being a certified person is a serious matter and the legal practice board has the authority to enforce contempt orders against those who violate the law. The court also emphasised the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal process and ensuring that decisions are made fairly and impartially.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed

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.