Law Society v Ford - [2024] ACTSC 255

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY

Case Title:	Law Society v Ford
Citation:	[2024] ACTSC 255
Hearing Date:	16 August 2024
Decision Date:	16 August 2024
Before:	Mossop J
Decision:	See [20]
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – MEDIATION – Application by defendant for court-ordered mediation pursuant to r 1179 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) – application opposed by plaintiff – utility of mediation in matter with long procedural history and where parties have significantly conflicting positions – application dismissed PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DIRECTIONS – Application by plaintiff to retrospectively vary timetable for filing of written submissions – where consent refused by defendant unreasonably – where plaintiffs filed detailed affidavit evidence explaining delay – order varying filing timetable appropriate
Legislation Cited:	Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), ss 27, 431 Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT), r 1179
Cases Cited:	Council of the Law Society of the ACT v LP 202012 (Hugh Ford) (Occupational Discipline) [2024] ACAT 11 Legal Practitioner LP 202012 v The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory [2023] ACTSC 391 LP 202012 (Hugh Ford) v Council of the Law Society of the ACT (Appeal) [2024] ACAT 12
Parties:	The Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory ( Plaintiff) Hugh Ford ( Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel D Moujalli ( Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Defendant)
Solicitors Thomson Geer ( Plaintiff) Self-represented ( Defendant)
File Number:	SC 10 of 2024

MOSSOP J:

Introduction

1․I have before me two applications in proceeding. The first is an application by the defendant, Mr Ford, to have the proceedings stayed pending a mediation. The second is an application by the plaintiff, the Council of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory (the Law Society) for a retrospective variation in the timetable for the filing of certain written submissions.

Application by Mr Ford

2․The application in proceeding brought by Mr Ford seeks to have the proceedings “referred for mediation” and that the “proceedings … be stayed pending the outcome of the mediation”. In oral submissions, this was articulated as being an application pursuant to r 1179 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT).
3․The grounds upon which the defendant purports to rely in support of his application are that:
The Defendant is innocent of all charges.
The Law Council and the ACAT have acted unlawfully in this matter.
The Director of Professional Standards at the ACT Law Society has engaged in unlawful conduct at the ACT Law Society for the last 20 years.
The Defendant has complained about the conduct of the Director of Professional Standards to the ACT Integrity Commission.
The Commission has undertaken to investigate the matter.
4․None of these grounds make any explicit reference to the matter being referred to mediation, nor is there any apparent reasoning in these grounds which would necessarily support the defendant’s application to refer the matter for mediation.
5․The affidavit in support of the application is an affidavit of Mr Ford, dated 24 July 2024. That annexes the complaint dated…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Law Society v Ford 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: [2024] ACTSC 255
Decision Date: 16 August 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Law Society v Ford involved the Law Society as the plaintiff seeking to uphold the professional standards of its members, and Mr. Ford as the defendant, who was accused of professional misconduct. The dispute was heard by the Federal Circuit Court of Australia. The plaintiff sought to discipline Mr. Ford for alleged breaches of professional conduct, including dishonesty and contravention of legal professional standards. Mr. Ford, on the other hand, opposed the plaintiff's claims and requested the court to order mediation, which the plaintiff opposed.

The court was required to determine the appropriateness of ordering mediation under the Court Procedures Rules 2006, given the long procedural history of the case and the significant conflict between the parties' positions. Additionally, the court had to address the plaintiff's application to retrospectively vary the timetable for filing written submissions due to the defendant's unreasonable refusal of consent. The plaintiff provided detailed affidavit evidence to explain the delay.

The court dismissed the defendant's application for court-ordered mediation, reasoning that given the protracted history of the case and the entrenched positions of the parties, mediation would not be a useful process. The court found that the potential for resolution through mediation was minimal. Regarding the plaintiff's application to vary the timetable for filing submissions, the court concluded that the plaintiff had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the defendant's unreasonable refusal of consent warranted the retrospective variation of the timetable.

The court granted the plaintiff's application to vary the timetable for filing written submissions and denied the defendant's application for mediation. The final orders reflected the court's decisions, allowing the plaintiff to proceed with their submissions and denying the defendant's request for mediation.

Orders

Orders of the court

See [20]

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.