Legal Services Commissioner v Beames - [2012] QSC 327

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Beames [2012] QSC 327

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)
v
DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

SC No 9039 of 2012

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

24 October 2012

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

9, 12 October 2012

JUDGE:

Philippides J

ORDER:

1. It is declared that the respondent is and was at all material times, a person who did “represent that he was entitled to engage in legal practice” whilst he was not an Australian legal practitioner, as referred to in s 25(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“the LPA”).

2. Pursuant to s 703 of the LPA, the respondent is restrained from representing that he is entitled to engage in legal practice, when he is not an Australian legal practitioner, in contravention of s 25(1) of the LPA, and in particular is restrained from:

(a)Describing himself as a “lawyer”, “solicitor” or “legal practitioner” when witnessing documents.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – UNQUALIFIED PERSONS AND DISQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for a declaration that the respondent represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner – where the applicant applies for an injunction to restrain the respondent from engaging in legal practice when he is not an Australian legal practitioner – whether the respondent engaged in legal practice – whether injunctive relief should be granted pursuant to s 703 of the LPA.

COUNSEL:

B McMillan for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Crown Law for the applicant
The respondent appeared on his own behalf

The application

The Legal Services Commissioner (“the applicant”) has brought an application pursuant to s 703 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (“LPA”) in respect of the respondent, Douglas Macleod Beames, for the following orders:

1.A declaration that the respondent is and was at all material times, a person who did “represent that he was entitled to engage in legal practice” whilst he was not an Australian legal practitioner, as referred to in s 25(1) of the Act.
2.An injunctive order restraining the respondent from representing that he is entitled to engage in legal practice when he is not an Australian legal practitioner, in contravention of s 25(1) of the Act, and in particular that he is restrained from:
(a)Describing himself as a lawyer, solicitor or legal practitioner when witnesses documents.

The matter was listed for hearing on 9 October 2012. On that occasion, the respondent appeared and sought an adjournment of the application relying on submissions, inter alia, that the present proceedings were initiated by “the use and delivery of fake initiating documents”. While the matter was stood down, the respondent absented himself. It seems that the respondent left court, apparently indicating that he was unwell. In those circumstances, the application was adjourned to 12 October 2012, with the respondent…

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 Services Commissioner v Beames 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: [2012] QSC 327
Decision Date: 24 October 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner brought an application against Mr Beames seeking a declaration and an injunction concerning his unauthorised practice of law. The case was heard in the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The Commissioner alleged that Mr Beames had represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner. The Commissioner also sought an injunction to restrain Mr Beames from engaging in legal practice without proper qualifications.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether Mr Beames had indeed engaged in legal practice without the requisite qualifications, and whether the Commissioner was entitled to injunctive relief under section 703 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). The Tribunal had to determine if Mr Beames had contravened section 25(1) of the LPA by representing that he was entitled to engage in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner. Additionally, the Tribunal considered whether the Commissioner had demonstrated sufficient grounds for the grant of injunctive relief.

The Tribunal found that Mr Beames had represented himself as a legal practitioner when he was not qualified to do so. Evidence showed that he had witnessed documents and described himself as a "lawyer", "solicitor", or "legal practitioner". The Tribunal concluded that Mr Beames had contravened section 25(1) of the LPA. Given the nature of the contravention and the potential harm to the public, the Tribunal granted the Commissioner's application for an injunction. The injunction restrained Mr Beames from representing that he was entitled to engage in legal practice without the proper qualifications and specifically prohibited him from describing himself as a "lawyer", "solicitor", or "legal practitioner" when witnessing documents.

In summary, the Tribunal declared that Mr Beames had represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice when unqualified and granted an injunction to prevent him from continuing such conduct. This decision underscores the importance of maintaining the integrity of the legal profession and protecting the public from unqualified practice.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. It is declared that the respondent is and was at all material times, a person who did “represent that he was entitled to engage in legal practice” whilst he was not an Australian legal practitioner, as referred to in s 25(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“the LPA”).

2. Pursuant to s 703 of the LPA, the respondent is restrained from representing that he is entitled to engage in legal practice, when he is not an Australian legal practitioner, in contravention of s 25(1) of the LPA, and in particular is restrained from:

(a)Describing himself as a “lawyer”, “solicitor” or “legal practitioner” when witnessing documents.

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 Services Commissioner v Beames [2012] QSC 327
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant) v DOUGLAS MACLEOD BEAMES (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	SC No 9039 of 2012
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	24 October 2012
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	9, 12 October 2012
JUDGE:	Philippides J
ORDER:	1. It is declared that the respondent is and was at all material times, a person who did “represent that he was entitled to engage in legal practice” whilst he was not an Australian legal practitioner, as referred to in s 25(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) (“the LPA”). 2. Pursuant to s 703 of the LPA, the respondent is restrained from representing that he is entitled to engage in legal practice, when he is not an Australian legal practitioner, in contravention of s 25(1) of the LPA, and in particular is restrained from: (a)Describing himself as a “lawyer”, “solicitor” or “legal practitioner” when witnessing documents.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – UNQUALIFIED PERSONS AND DISQUALIFIED PRACTITIONERS – GENERALLY – where the applicant applies for a declaration that the respondent represented that he was entitled to engage in legal practice when he was not an Australian legal practitioner – where the applicant applies for an injunction to restrain the respondent from engaging in legal practice when he is not an Australian legal practitioner – whether the respondent engaged in legal practice – whether injunctive relief should be granted pursuant to s 703 of the LPA.
COUNSEL:	B McMillan for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Crown Law for the applicant The respondent appeared on his own behalf