Legal Services Commissioner v Jensen

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Jensen [2018] QCAT 264

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)

v

CRAIG GRAHAM SELWYN JENSEN

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR069-14

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

13 August 2018

HEARING DATE:

13 August 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice Daubney, President

Assisted by:
Mr Scott Anderson
Ms Patrice McKay

ORDERS:

The respondent shall pay the applicant’s costs to be assessed on the standard basis on the Supreme Court Scale under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in the manner that the costs would be assessed in the Supreme Court of Queensland.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – QUEENSLAND – where costs reserved – where respondent appealed to Court of Appeal – where Court of Appeal allowed the appeal – where Court of Appeal made no determination as to costs – whether exceptional circumstances exist to depart from the prima facie position under s 462 Legal Profession Act 2007.

Legal Profession Act 2007, s 462

Legal Services Commissioner v Scott [2009] LPT 007

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

M Nicholson of counsel, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner

Respondent:

M Cooper Solicitor, appearing pro bono of Michael Cooper Lawyer

REASONS FOR DECISION

1. Today’s hearing represents what should be the denouement of long-running litigation in this tribunal between the applicant, the Legal Services Commissioner (‘LSC’), and the respondent, who is a legal practitioner. 

2. Ultimately, today’s hearing is concerned only with whether an order for costs should be made under section 462 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (“the Act”), and, if so, the nature and form of that costs order.

3. It is sufficient, for present purposes, to give only a very brief history of the matter.  In 2014, the applicant commenced disciplinary proceedings against the respondent in the tribunal, preferring four charges against the respondent.  Those charges came on for hearing in the tribunal in August of 2015.  Ultimately, on 22 May 2017, the decision of the tribunal was published, by which, amongst other things, the tribunal made findings that the respondent had engaged in professional misconduct, and unsatisfactory professional conduct, and imposed a sanction purporting to order that the respondent’s name be removed from the Roll of Solicitors.  Importantly, order 3 of the tribunal’s decision delivered on that day effectively reserved the question of costs by providing:

   Unless either party requests an oral hearing by 9 June 2017, the issue of costs will be decided on the papers after 9 June 2017.

4. The questions of costs, so reserved by the tribunal, was never determined.  

5. The respondent instituted an appeal, which is the subject of the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Jensen v Legal Services Commissioner.[1]  His appeal was allowed, and when one reads the judgment of Atkinson J (with whom Soffronoff P and Gotterson JA agreed) it is clear enough that the approach of the Court of Appeal was to reconsider the impugned conduct and come to an assessment of the…