Legal Practitioners Admissions Board v Doolan - [2016] QCA 331

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Legal Practitioners Admissions Board v Doolan [2016] QCA 331

PARTIES:

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD
(appellant)
v
RICHARD FRANCIS JOHN DOOLAN
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 5477 of 2016
QCATA No 101 of 2013

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2016] QCAT 98

DELIVERED ON:

9 December 2016

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 October 2016

JUDGES:

Gotterson and Philippides and Philip McMurdo JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   Appeal allowed.

2.   Set aside the decision of the Tribunal made on 28 April 2016.

3.   Order, in lieu, that the appellant, Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, ought properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent.

4.   There be no order as to costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant refused the respondent’s application for early consideration of suitability as a result of conflicting medical opinions as to his mental health, relevant to suitability matter (m) – where the respondent’s appeal against the refusal was allowed and referred to QCAT to determine whether, in light of his mental health, he is currently able to satisfactorily carry out the inherent requirements of practice, and whether the declaratory relief sought by the application should be given – where the Tribunal made a factual finding that the respondent is not currently able to satisfactorily carry out the inherent requirements of practice – where, despite this finding, the Tribunal made the declaration sought by the respondent – where it is alleged the Tribunal erred in law by: (1) making orders inconsistent with its factual finding; (2) venturing beyond the matters for direction which the Tribunal had been referred to; and (3) misapprehending that suitability matter (m) could and ought be dealt with at the stage of issue of a practising certificate – whether the Admissions Board ought properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 9(1)(m), s 31, s 32, s 33

COUNSEL:

K N Wilson QC, with P Mylne, for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Practitioners Admissions Board for the appellant
No appearance for the respondent

GOTTERSON JA: Mr Richard Francis John Doolan has satisfied both academic and practical training requirements for admission as a legal practitioner in Queensland. Unfortunately, he has a history of mental illness. Notwithstanding this, he desires to be admitted as a legal practitioner.
In order to explain the position in which Mr Doolan now finds himself, I propose first to outline the statutory provisions relevant to his situation. I will then set out the history of applications he has made under those provisions.

Suitability provisions

Section 31(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“LPA”) provides that a person is suitable for admission to the legal profession under the Act only if the person is…

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 Practitioners Admissions Board v Doolan 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: [2016] QCA 331
Decision Date: 9 December 2016

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Legal Practitioners Admissions Board v Doolan, the respondent's application for early consideration of suitability for admission as a legal practitioner was refused by the appellant, the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board. The refusal was based on conflicting medical opinions regarding the respondent's mental health. The respondent appealed this decision, leading to a referral to the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) to determine if he could satisfactorily perform the inherent requirements of practice. The QCAT found that the respondent could not currently meet these requirements but still granted the declaratory relief sought by the respondent. The Board now appeals the QCAT's decision.

The primary legal issue in this appeal was whether the QCAT erred in law by making orders inconsistent with its factual findings, venturing beyond the scope of the matters referred to it, and misapprehending the handling of suitability matter (m). Specifically, the Board argued that the QCAT should not have granted the declaration despite finding that the respondent could not currently satisfy the inherent requirements of practice. The Board also contended that the QCAT exceeded its authority by addressing matters outside the scope of the referral and misapplied the suitability criteria.

The court found that the QCAT's decision contained errors in law. It held that the QCAT's orders were inconsistent with its factual findings, as it granted a declaration despite finding that the respondent could not meet the inherent requirements of practice. The court also determined that the QCAT went beyond the matters referred to it by addressing the issue of issuing a practising certificate, which was not within the scope of the referral. Furthermore, the court found that the QCAT misapprehended suitability matter (m) by suggesting it could be dealt with at the stage of issuing a practising certificate. The court concluded that the QCAT's decision was flawed and that the Board should properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent.

The appeal was allowed, and the QCAT's decision of 28 April 2016 was set aside. In lieu of the QCAT's decision, it was ordered that the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board ought properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent. There was no order as to costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Appeal allowed.

2. Set aside the decision of the Tribunal made on 28 April 2016.

3. Order, in lieu, that the appellant, Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, ought properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent.

4. There be no order as to costs.

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.

CITATION:	Legal Practitioners Admissions Board v Doolan [2016] QCA 331
PARTIES:	LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD (appellant) v RICHARD FRANCIS JOHN DOOLAN (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 5477 of 2016 QCATA No 101 of 2013
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Appeal Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act
ORIGINATING COURT:	Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – [2016] QCAT 98
DELIVERED ON:	9 December 2016
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	28 October 2016
JUDGES:	Gotterson and Philippides and Philip McMurdo JJA Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made
ORDERS:	1. Appeal allowed. 2. Set aside the decision of the Tribunal made on 28 April 2016. 3. Order, in lieu, that the appellant, Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, ought properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent. 4. There be no order as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – OTHER MATTERS – where the appellant refused the respondent’s application for early consideration of suitability as a result of conflicting medical opinions as to his mental health, relevant to suitability matter (m) – where the respondent’s appeal against the refusal was allowed and referred to QCAT to determine whether, in light of his mental health, he is currently able to satisfactorily carry out the inherent requirements of practice, and whether the declaratory relief sought by the application should be given – where the Tribunal made a factual finding that the respondent is not currently able to satisfactorily carry out the inherent requirements of practice – where, despite this finding, the Tribunal made the declaration sought by the respondent – where it is alleged the Tribunal erred in law by: (1) making orders inconsistent with its factual finding; (2) venturing beyond the matters for direction which the Tribunal had been referred to; and (3) misapprehending that suitability matter (m) could and ought be dealt with at the stage of issue of a practising certificate – whether the Admissions Board ought properly refuse the declaration sought by the respondent Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 9(1)(m), s 31, s 32, s 33
COUNSEL:	K N Wilson QC, with P Mylne, for the appellant No appearance for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Practitioners Admissions Board for the appellant No appearance for the respondent