Legal Practice Board v Tee

Case [2008] WASC 206

LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- TEE [2008] WASC 206



SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIACitation No:[2008] WASC 206
Case No:CIV:2100/20072 SEPTEMBER 2008
Coram:SIMMONDS J26/09/08
30Judgment Part:1 of 1
Result: Respondent found to have committed four of the five contempts alleged
B
PDF Version
Parties:LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
JAMES HONG TEE

Catchwords:
Contempt of court
Statutory contempt
Use of name, title or description implying or tending to the belief person is a legal practitioner
Contravention of Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) s 128(b) read with s 250
Contempt of court
Statutory contempt
Test for contravention of Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) s 128(b)
Applications of test to conduct and witness summons

Legislation:
Legal Practice Act (WA), s 3 'legal practitioner', s 123(1), s 128(b), s 250
Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 80
Legal Profession Practice Act 1988 (Vic), s 90(7), s 92(1)(a)
Public Notaries Act 1979 (WA), s 7(2)

Case References:
Burke v The Queen (1997) 96 A Crim R 334
Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188
Hammond v Aboudi [2005] WASCA 204
Heedes v Legal Practice Board [2005] WASCA 166
John Holland Pty Ltd v The Construction, Forestry, Mining and Energy Union [2006] WASC 106
Kekatos v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [1999] NSWCA 288
Law Institute of Victoria Ltd v Lydia Maric & Home Conveyancing Reservoir Pty Ltd [2008] VSCA 46
Law Society of NSW v Seymour [1999] NSWCA 117
Legal Practice Board v Frichot [2006] WASC 230
Legal Practice Board v Frichot [2006] WASC 230 (S)
Legal Practice Board v Frichot [2006] WASC 230 (S2)
Legal Practitioners Board v Ferguson [2006] WASC 250
R v Hillier (2007) 228 CLR 618
Re Sanderson, Ex parte Law Institute of Victoria [1927] VLR 394
The Barristers Board v Palm Management Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 101
The Director Of Public Prosecutions For Western Australia v Network Ten (Perth) Pty Ltd [2007] WASC 166

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
    IN CHAMBERS
CITATION : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- TEE [2008] WASC 206 CORAM : SIMMONDS J HEARD : 2 SEPTEMBER 2008 DELIVERED : 26 SEPTEMBER 2008 FILE NO/S : CIV 2100 of 2007 MATTER : Section 250 of the Legal Practice Act 2003 BETWEEN : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
    Plaintiff

    AND

    JAMES HONG TEE
    Defendant
FILE NO/S : CIV 1377 of 2008 BETWEEN : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD
    Plaintiff

    AND

    JAMES HONG TEE
    Defendant

(Page 2)



Catchwords:

Contempt of court - Statutory contempt - Use of name, title or description implying or tending to the belief person is a legal practitioner - Contravention of Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) s 128(b) read with s 250



Contempt of court - Statutory contempt - Test for contravention of Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) s 128(b) - Applications of test to conduct and witness summons

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act (WA), s 3 'legal practitioner', s 123(1), s 128(b), s 250


Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 80
Legal…

Continue reading Legal Practice Board v Tee

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Legal Practice Board v Tee [2008] WASC 206
Case
[2008] WASC 206
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Practice Board brought proceedings against Mr Tee for contempt of court, alleging that he had contravened sections 128(b) and 250 of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA) by using a name, title or description implying or tending to the belief that he was a legal practitioner. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia, where the Board sought to have Mr Tee found guilty of five counts of statutory contempt.

The primary legal issue the court needed to address was the appropriate test for determining whether Mr Tee's conduct contravened section 128(b) of the Legal Practice Act. This involved interpreting the scope and application of the statutory provision, particularly in the context of conduct and the issuance of a witness summons. The court had to consider whether Mr Tee's actions met the threshold for statutory contempt, specifically focusing on whether they implied or tended to imply that he was a legal practitioner.

In reaching its decision, the court meticulously examined the evidence and arguments presented by both parties. The Board argued that Mr Tee's conduct constituted statutory contempt under the Legal Practice Act. The court found that Mr Tee's conduct implied or tended to imply that he was a legal practitioner on four of the five occasions alleged by the Board. Consequently, Mr Tee was found to have committed four of the five contempts alleged against him. The court's reasoning was grounded in the statutory language and the specific circumstances of each instance of alleged contempt.

The court ordered that Mr Tee be found guilty of four counts of statutory contempt, as alleged by the Board. The decision underscores the importance of strict adherence to the provisions of the Legal Practice Act and the severe consequences that may follow for those who contravene them.

Orders

Orders of the court

Respondent found to have committed four of the five contempts alleged

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.