LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- TILLEY & ANOR [2006] WASC 73

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2006] WASC 73
Case No:	CIV:2416/2005	Heard:	8 FEBRUARY 2006
Coram:	BLAXELL J	Delivered:	28/04/06
No of pages:	9	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Fines imposed
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD DAVID BERTRAM TILLEY ACCORD GROUP (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 076 910 784)
Catchwords:	Legal practitioners Work performed by person other than a legal practitioner Penalty for contempt of court
Legislation:	Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 250 Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 77, s 81
Case References:	Barristers Board v Palm Management Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 101 D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Boulaudas (1994) 10 WAR 191 Attorney-General v Quill Wills Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 500 Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188 Legal Practice Board v Adams [2001] WASC 78 Legal Practice Board v Heedes [2004] WASC 260 Legal Practice Board v Mullally [2003] WASC 225 Legal Practice Board v Rogers [1999] WASC 106 Legal Practice Board v Van Der Zwaan [2002] WASC 133 The Barristers' Board v Marbellup Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] WAR 335

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

IN CHAMBERS

CITATION : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD -v- TILLEY & ANOR [2006] WASC 73 CORAM : BLAXELL J HEARD : 8 FEBRUARY 2006 DELIVERED : 28 APRIL 2006 FILE NO/S : CIV 2416 of 2005 BETWEEN : LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD

Applicant

AND

DAVID BERTRAM TILLEY

First Respondent

ACCORD GROUP (WA) PTY LTD (ACN 076 910 784)

Second Respondent

Catchwords:

Legal practitioners - Work performed by person other than a legal practitioner - Penalty for contempt of court

Legislation:

Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), s 250

Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA), s 77, s 81

(Page 2)

Result:

Fines imposed

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Applicant : Ms W S Meggison

First Respondent : Mr R W Richardson

Second Respondent : Mr R W Richardson

Solicitors:

Applicant : Minter Ellison

First Respondent : B W Duckham & Co

Second Respondent : B W Duckham & Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Barristers Board v Palm Management Pty Ltd [1984] WAR 101
D'Alessandro & D'Angelo v Bouloudas (1994) 10 WAR 191

Case(s) also cited:

Attorney-General v Quill Wills Ltd (1990) 3 WAR 500
Cornall v Nagle [1995] 2 VR 188
Legal Practice Board v Adams [2001] WASC 78
Legal Practice Board v Heedes [2004] WASC 260
Legal Practice Board v Mullally [2003] WASC 225
Legal Practice Board v Rogers [1999] WASC 106
Legal Practice Board v Van Der Zwaan [2002] WASC 133
The Barristers' Board v Marbellup Nominees Pty Ltd & Ors [1984] WAR 335

(Page 3)

1 BLAXELL J: This is an application by the Legal Practice Board for orders that each of the respondents be punished for the following conduct which constituted a contempt of court:

"1. ... neither of them being duly certified legal practitioners, did during the period from in or about September 2002 to in or about March 2003,…

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 Legal Practice Board v Tilley 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: [2006] WASC 73
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Legal Practice Board v Tilley and Accord Group (WA) Pty Ltd involves the Legal Practice Board seeking penalties against David Bertram Tilley and Accord Group (WA) Pty Ltd for engaging in the administration of law without being duly certified legal practitioners. The respondents admitted to performing legal work, including drafting documents related to business transactions, despite not being licensed legal practitioners. The court had to decide the appropriate penalties for the contempt of court committed by the respondents.

The court considered the nature and duration of the contempt, the respondents' motivation, and the mitigating factors. The court found that the contempt was moderately serious due to the sustained and repeated nature of the illegal activities over a six-month period. However, the court also acknowledged that the contempt was committed in ignorance of the law and that Tilley intended to assist his client at minimal cost. The court further noted Tilley's exemplary character and contributions to the community as mitigating factors. Given the gravity of the contempt and the mitigating circumstances, the court imposed fines of $2000 on each respondent and ordered them to pay the Legal Practice Board's costs.

Orders