In the Matter of Michael Trevor Prescott, A Practitioner And the Legal Practitioners Act 1981

The case involves Michael Trevor Prescott, a legal practitioner, and the Legal Practitioners Act 1981. Prescott applied for extensions of time within which to file audit reports of his trust account. The applicant had lodged his audit report late for two consecutive years and continued to practise during the period his practising certificate was deemed suspended. The primary issue before the court was whether it had the power to extend the time after a late audit report had been submitted and whether it could make an order for an extension of time nunc pro tunc. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the sought orders would cure a procedural defect or a fundamental irregularity.

The court examined the legal provisions and the context in which they were applied. It noted that the practitioner argued the word "may" in s 33(1)(b) implied a discretion exercisable at any time, but the court disagreed. It held that even if the expression "may have allowed" had been used, it would not specify whether the court could allow a later date before or after 31 October or at some other time. The court found that the section should be construed to allow the order to be made after 31 October to provide the most complete remedy consistent with the language employed. However, the court concluded that the orders sought would not cure a procedural defect or a fundamental irregularity but would instead result in offences being committed and potential suspension of the practitioner's practising certificate.

The court dismissed the application for orders under s 33(1)(b) of the Legal Practitioners Act and the appeal against the decision of the Law Society to decline to make any such orders. The court held that it did not have the power to extend the time after the late submission of the audit report or to make an order for an extension of time nunc pro tunc. Consequently, the court found that the orders sought would not rectify the fundamental irregularity created by the late submission of the audit reports. The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the statutory provisions and the consequences of allowing such extensions, which would have extensive ramifications for the practitioner and third parties.