In the matter of an application by Joelon Alex Fincher - [2021] NTSC 22

CITATION:In the matter of an application by Joelon Alex Fincher [2021] NTSC 22
PARTIES:IN THE MATTER OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2006
AND

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

FINCHER, Joelon Alex

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT exercising Territory Jurisdiction
FILE NO:2020-02312-SC
DELIVERED ON:  26 February 2021
HEARING DATE:  10 February 2021
JUDGMENT OF:  Brownhill J

Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT) s 11, 25, 30, 31
Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 32; In re Deo (2005) 16
NTLR 102; In re Hampton [2002] QCA 129; In re Kickett [2018] NTSC 26; In re OG
(A Lawyer) (2007) 18 VR 164; In re Onyeledo [2015] NTSC 60; In re Saunders
[2011] NTSC 63; In re Shepherd [2007] QCA 83; In re Sutton [2016] NTSC 9; In re
Thomas [2005] 1 Qd R 331; Incorporated Law Institute (NSW) v Meagher (1909) 9
CLR 655; Thomas v Legal Practitioners Admission Board (2005) 1 Qd R 331,
considered.

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Applicant:M Littlejohn
Respondent:  F Kepert
Solicitors:
Applicant:Cozens Johansen Lawyers
Respondent:  Law Society Northern Territory
Judgment category classification:    C
Judgment ID Number:  Bro2106
Number of pages:  28

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
In the matter of an application by Joelon Alex Fincher [2021] NTSC 22

No. 2020-02312-SC
IN THE MATTER OF:

THE LEGAL PROFESSION ACT 2006

AND:

IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY

JOELON ALEX FINCHER

CORAM: Brownhill J
REASONS FOR DECISION
(Delivered 26 February 2021)

Joelon Alex Fincher (‘the applicant’) applied to be admitted as a local lawyer pursuant to s 25 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT) (‘the Act’). His application was accompanied by an affidavit made by him on 16 June 2020 (‘the first affidavit’). His application was considered by the Legal Practitioners’ Admission Board (‘the Board’). The Board asked him to provide more information by way of a further affidavit in relation to, relevantly, the Centrelink overpayment disclosed by the applicant in the first affidavit. The applicant made a second affidavit on 12 August 2020 (‘the second affidavit’). The second affidavit revealed that the applicant had actually incurred four Centrelink overpayments between 2009 and 2014.[1]
The Board then asked the applicant to provide his entire Centrelink file and to make specific reference to the relevant parts of it to explain the four Centrelink overpayments. The applicant made a fourth affidavit on 10 November 2020 (‘fourth affidavit’) which contained a copy of the Centrelink file and provided further information about the overpayments.
Pursuant to s 32(1) of the Act, the Board referred to the Court the issue of whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession. The Chairperson of the Board sent a memorandum to the Chief Justice on 20 November 2020 making that referral. The memorandum stated the Board’s concern that the affidavits demonstrated the applicant “had been initially evasive in respect…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading In the matter of an application by Joelon Alex Fincher

Details

AGLC: In the matter of an application by Joelon Alex Fincher [2021] NTSC 22
Case: [2021] NTSC 22
Decision Date: 26 February 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Joelon Alex Fincher applied to be admitted as a local lawyer under the Legal Profession Act 2006 (NT). The Legal Practitioners’ Admission Board (Board) referred to the Supreme Court the issue of whether or not the applicant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession. The Court was required to determine whether the applicant was a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession. The Court found that the applicant was a fit and proper person for admission as a local lawyer under the Act. The Court found that the applicant’s errors of judgment were not deliberate or dishonest and that he had learnt from his mistakes. The applicant had shown that he now understood the importance of candour and attention to detail in making disclosures to the Board and the Court. The Court made an order admitting the applicant as a local lawyer.

Orders