LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE and KHOSA

The case before the court involved the Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Khosa. The applicant sought to strike out a complaint on the basis that the respondent had been disadvantaged by the conduct of the other party. The matter was heard in the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia. The applicant argued that the respondent had been prejudiced by the other party's conduct, and as a result, the complaint should be dismissed. The court was required to determine whether the respondent had indeed been disadvantaged by the conduct of the other party and if there was sufficient evidence to support this claim.

The court examined the application to strike out the complaint under section 48 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA). The applicant needed to demonstrate that there was no evidence of the alleged conduct and/or that no disadvantage had been established. The court scrutinised the evidence presented by the applicant and found that there was no evidence to support the claim of disadvantage. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had failed to establish that the other party's conduct had indeed caused the alleged disadvantage. Consequently, the court determined that the application to strike out the complaint was unsuccessful.

The court's reasoning was based on the lack of evidence presented by the applicant to substantiate the claim of disadvantage. The applicant had not provided any evidence to support the assertion that the other party's conduct had caused a disadvantage. In the absence of such evidence, the court found that the application to strike out the complaint was not well-founded. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the other party's conduct had indeed resulted in the alleged disadvantage. As a result, the court dismissed the application to strike out the complaint.

The final orders of the court were that the application to strike out the complaint was dismissed, and the complaint against the respondent was to proceed as scheduled. The court found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to support the claim of disadvantage and had failed to demonstrate that the other party's conduct had caused the alleged disadvantage. Consequently, the complaint against the respondent was to continue, and the court ordered that the matter proceed as per the scheduled hearing.