Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT

This matter concerned an appeal and a cross-appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of the ACT, which had itself reviewed a decision of the ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT). The primary dispute involved findings of professional misconduct against a legal practitioner and the subsequent penalty imposed by the ACAT. The legal practitioner appealed against the Supreme Court's dismissal of their grounds of appeal, while the Law Society of the ACT cross-appealed against the Supreme Court's findings regarding the ACAT's power to reopen proceedings.

The court was required to determine whether the legal practitioner had demonstrated an error on the part of the primary judge in dismissing their appeal against the findings of professional misconduct. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the ACAT was *functus officio* when it reopened proceedings to determine penalty, and if the primary judge erred in finding that no "extraordinary circumstances" existed under section 56(c)(iii) of the ACAT Act to justify reopening. The court also considered whether considerations of efficiency could constitute "extraordinary circumstances" and whether the ACAT's failure to afford the practitioner procedural fairness in the initial penalty determination warranted reopening the proceedings.

On the practitioner's appeal, the court found no error in the primary judge's reasoning. The court held that the practitioner had failed to demonstrate any error in the Supreme Court's dismissal of their grounds of appeal, noting that the issue they sought to agitate was not before the primary judge and that the evidence did not support their appeal grounds. However, on the Law Society's cross-appeal, the court determined that the ACAT was entitled to reopen the proceedings. The court reasoned that the ACAT's failure to afford the practitioner procedural fairness during the initial penalty determination constituted "extraordinary circumstances" within the meaning of section 56(c)(iii) of the ACAT Act, thereby permitting the reopening of the proceedings.

The appeal by the legal practitioner was dismissed. The cross-appeal by the Law Society of the ACT was allowed.