Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey

Link copied
Case Copied 37 min read

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey [2010] QCA 197

PARTIES:

PAUL ANTHONY DEMPSEY
(respondent/appellant)
v
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant/respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 13255 of 2009
SC No 9435 of 2008

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

30 July 2010

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

19 May 2010

JUDGES:

McMurdo P, Holmes and Muir JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDERS:

1.   The appellant be refused leave to adduce further evidence;

2.   The appeal be dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT – MISLEADING THE COURT AND PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE – Legal Practice Tribunal found appellant legal practitioner guilty of six charges brought under s 452 Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) – Tribunal found appellant gave false evidence that a meeting occurred with a client – appellant’s evidence was uncorroborated – client gave evidence that no such meeting took place – whether Tribunal erred in finding appellant gave false evidence

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – Tribunal found that appellant had perjured himself – appellant argued Tribunal had not put him on notice of the specific issue for which he was accused of perjury – appellant argued Tribunal did not give him an opportunity to answer the accusation of perjury – whether appellant denied procedural fairness

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – APPEALS – appellant sought leave to adduce evidence regarding the alleged meeting – whether leave should be granted to adduce further evidence

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 452, s 468

Abalos v Australian Postal Commission (1990) 171 CLR 167; [1990] HCA 47, cited
Atlantic 3-Financial (Aust) Pty Ltd v Marler [2004] 1 Qd R 579; [2003] QCA 529, cited
Barwick v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2004] Aust Torts Reports 81-730; [2004] NSWCA 32, cited
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34, cited
Clarke v Japan Machines (Australia) Pty Ltd [1984] 1 Qd R 404, cited
Commonwealth Bank of Australia v Quade (1991) 178 CLR 134; [1991] HCA 61, cited
Fox v Percy (2003) 214 CLR 118; [2003] HCA 22, cited
Legal Services Commissioner v Voll [2008] QCA 293, cited
O'Reilly v Law Society (NSW) (1988) 24 NSWLR 204, cited
Smith v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 256; [1992] HCA 36, cited

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris QC for the respondent/appellant
G P Long, with B I McMillan, for the applicant/respondent

SOLICITORS:

Sciaccas Lawyers for the respondent/appellant
Legal Services Commission for the applicant/respondent

  1. McMURDO P:  I agree with Muir JA's reasons for refusing the appellant leave to adduce further evidence and dismissing the appeal with costs.

  1. HOLMES JA:

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Dempsey 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
[2010] QCA 197
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner has appealed against a decision of the Legal Practice Tribunal, which dismissed disciplinary charges brought against the appellant, a legal practitioner. The charges related to allegations of professional misconduct, including misleading the court and perverting the course of justice. The Tribunal found the appellant guilty of six charges under section 452 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), including giving false evidence that a meeting had occurred with a client. The appellant's evidence was uncorroborated, while the client provided evidence that no such meeting took place. The Tribunal found that the appellant had perjured himself and dismissed his claims of procedural unfairness.

The appellant argued that the Tribunal had not put him on notice of the specific issue for which he was accused of perjury and did not give him an opportunity to answer the accusation of perjury. The appellant also claimed that the Tribunal had denied him procedural fairness. The court needed to determine whether the Tribunal erred in finding the appellant guilty of giving false evidence and whether the appellant's procedural fairness claims were valid. Additionally, the court had to decide whether the appellant should be granted leave to adduce further evidence regarding the alleged meeting.

The court found that the Tribunal was correct in finding the appellant guilty of giving false evidence, as the appellant's evidence was uncorroborated, and the client's evidence was to the contrary. The court also held that the Tribunal had not denied the appellant procedural fairness, as it had provided him with an opportunity to answer the accusation of perjury. The court dismissed the appellant's appeal and refused him leave to adduce further evidence. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The appellant be refused leave to adduce further evidence;

2. The appeal be dismissed with 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.