Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner v Fittock

The Legal Profession Conduct Commissioner (the Commissioner) appealed a decision of the South Australian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (the Tribunal) concerning disciplinary proceedings against a legal practitioner, Mr Fittock. The dispute centred on the Tribunal's jurisdiction to hear a complaint of unprofessional conduct that was laid more than three years after the alleged conduct occurred.

The primary legal issue before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia was whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to inquire into a charge of unprofessional conduct laid by a complainant other than the Attorney-General, where the conduct occurred more than three years prior to the charge being laid. This involved interpreting section 82(2a) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) (the LP Act) and its interaction with the concept of "interlocutory or procedural matter" as referred to in section 80(1b) of the LP Act.

The Court reasoned that section 82(2a) of the LP Act confers immunity on legal practitioners from charges of unprofessional conduct laid by persons other than the Attorney-General if the conduct occurred more than three years before the charge is laid. The Court held that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to inquire into such "stale" charges unless an extension of time is granted. Crucially, the Court determined that an application for an extension of time to lay a charge is not an "interlocutory or procedural matter" within the meaning of section 80(1b) of the LP Act. This is because a favourable decision on such an application finally determines a condition precedent to the Tribunal's power to inquire into the practitioner's conduct and make disciplinary orders.

The appeal was dismissed. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear a stale charge brought by a complainant other than the Attorney-General unless an extension of time is granted.