Legal Services Commissioner v Leneham

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Leneham [2017] QCAT 96

PARTIES:

Legal Services Commissioner
(Applicant)

v

Russell James Leneham

(Respondent)

APPLICATION NUMBER:

OCR062-16

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

HEARING DATE:

4 April 2017

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Justice DG Thomas, President

Assisted by:

Ms Julie Cameron (Legal panel member)

Dr Margaret Steinberg AM (Lay panel member)

DELIVERED ON:

10 April 2017

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

ORDERS MADE:

1. The application for dismissal and/or strike out made pursuant to section 47 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) is dismissed.

2.    The application for further particulars is dismissed.

3. The application for disclosure of documents made pursuant to section 62 Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) is dismissed.

The Tribunal directs, that:

4.    The Legal Services Commissioner will make enquiries and will use his best endeavours to obtain:

a.    All retainer documents in relation to the family provision proceedings as mentioned in paragraph 1 of annexure A to the respondent’s response; and

b.    Any contemporaneous file note made by Turner Freeman or Ms Hutchinson as mentioned in paragraph 1 of annexure A to the respondent’s response; and

c.    All instructions from Ms de la Motte to Ms Hutchinson (from and including 17 July 2015 up to and including 20 August 2015).

5.    If the Legal Services Commissioner obtains any such documents, the Legal Services Commissioner will provide copies of those documents to Mr Leneham forthwith upon receipt of the documents by the Legal Services Commissioner.

6.    The Legal Services Commissioner will inform Mr Leneham whether the information which becomes available to the Legal Services Commissioner reveals that any such documents do not exist.

7.    The Legal Services Commissioner will use his best endeavours to comply with these directions by 5 May 2017.

8.    The matter will be listed for a directions hearing on 9 May 2017.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – INTERLOCUTORY APPLICATION – STRIKE OUT – where respondent submitted the evidence relied upon by the applicant gave no prospects of successfully maintaining the disciplinary proceedings – where applicant submitted proceedings had not yet reached a stage where more evidence would be called – whether proceedings were so lacking in substance and misconceived so as to warrant striking out

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – DISCIPLINARY PROCEEDINGS – OTHER MATTERS – where, in the alternative, the respondent sought disclosure of documents relevant to the conduct alleged – where applicant indicated that it did not have those documents in its possession – where applicant offered to attempt to obtain those documents sought by respondent – whether such an order can be made under s 62 QCAT Act

Legal Profession Act 2007 ss 418, 419
Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) ss 47, 62, 63

General Steel Industries Inc v Commissioner for Railways NSW and Ors (1964) 112 CLR 125
Peter James Spencer v Commonwealth of Australia (2010) 241 CLR 118

APPEARANCES:

APPLICANT:

M Nicolson for…