Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board

The applicant, Hilton, sought a certificate from the Legal Profession Admission Board to be admitted as a legal practitioner in 2015. The Board refused to issue the certificate, a decision that was upheld on appeal to the primary judge. Hilton then appealed to the Court of Appeal against the primary judge's dismissal of his appeal. The central dispute concerned Hilton's eligibility for admission, given his prior removal from the solicitors' roll in 1988 following a conviction for conspiracy to corrupt a Minister for Corrective Services.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing Hilton's appeal against the Board's refusal. Specifically, the court had to consider whether Hilton had discharged the significant onus placed upon him to demonstrate his fitness and propriety for admission to legal practice, notwithstanding his past conviction and removal from the roll.

The Court of Appeal found no error in the primary judge's decision. Their Honours reasoned that the primary judge had correctly applied the established legal principles concerning the admission of legal practitioners who have previously been struck off the roll. These principles require an applicant to demonstrate, to a very high degree, that they are a fit and proper person to be admitted. The court concluded that Hilton had failed to discharge this heavy burden, and therefore, the primary judge's dismissal of his appeal was not appellable error.

Leave to appeal was granted, but the appeal itself was dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.