Legal Practitioners (Amendment) Act (No 3) 1997 (ACT)

This appeal concerned the meaning of the word "practise" in the Legal Practitioners Act 1970 (ACT) (the Act). The appeal was brought by the Australian Capital Territory Government who sought to have the word "practise" interpreted to include any activity that could only be performed by a legal practitioner. The respondent argued that the word should be limited to activities that could only be performed by a legal practitioner and that were for a reward. The appeal was dismissed. The court found that the plain meaning of the word "practise" included any activity that could only be performed by a legal practitioner. The court noted that the word "practise" was not limited to activities that were for a reward and that to interpret the word in this way would be to unnecessarily limit the scope of the Act. The court found that the Act was intended to regulate the activities of legal practitioners and that the word "practise" should be interpreted in a way that gave effect to this intention. The court noted that the respondent's interpretation of the word "practise" would have the effect of limiting the scope of the Act and that this was not in keeping with the intention of the Act.