Legal Services Commissioner v Redmond - [2018] QCAT 231

QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Redmond [2018] QCAT 231

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)

v

WILLIAM HANRON REDMOND

(respondent)

APPLICATION NO/S:

OCR056-17

MATTER TYPE:

Occupational regulation matters

DELIVERED ON:

17 July 2018

HEARING DATE:

9 May 2018

HEARD AT:

Brisbane

DECISION OF:

Hon Peter Lyons QC, Judicial Member

Assisted by:
Mr Scott Anderson

Mr Keith Revell

ORDERS:

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Any party applying for an order for costs is to file and serve submissions in support of the application within seven days of the publication of these reasons; and the other party is to file and serve submissions in reply within a further period of seven days.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where respondent allegedly failed to meet financial obligations in regards to an employed solicitor – whether professional misconduct – whether conduct happened in connection with the practice of law – whether conduct fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner – whether conduct involved a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 5(1), s 28, s 418,
s 419, s 452, s 656C,

Adamson v Queensland Law Society Inc (1990) 1 Qd R 498
Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750
Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner N1 [2016] ACAT 36
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Adams [2010] NSWADT 177
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Andreone [2014] NSWCATOD 49
Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Dalla [2011] NSW ADT 130
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Etherington [2016] NSWCATOD 31
Council of the Law Society of NSW v Kingston [2014] NSW CATOD 21
Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1939) ALJ 563
Law Society of NSW v Bouzanis [2006] NSWADT 55
Law Society of New South Wales v Delpopolo [2014] NSWCATOD 55
Law Society of New South Wales v Gillroy [2010] NSWADT 232
Law Society of New South Wales v Koffel [2010] NSWADT 149
Law Society of New South Wales v Vosnakis [2007] NSWADT 42
Legal Services Commissioner v Budgen [2011] QCAT 223

Legal Services Commissioner v Hope [2010] QCAT 184

APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:

Applicant:

D A Holliday of Counsel instructed by the Legal Services Commission

Respondent:

S Ford, Solicitor of Gilshenan & Luton

REASONS FOR DECISION
[1]The respondent failed (for a time) to meet financial obligations relating to an employed solicitor of various practices with which the respondent was associated. The applicant has contended that the respondent should as a result be found guilty of professional misconduct.
Respondent’s relevant legal career
[2]The respondent was admitted to practice as a solicitor on…

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 Redmond 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: [2018] QCAT 231
Decision Date: 17 July 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner sought an order to strike off the respondent's name from the legal practitioners' roll, based on allegations of professional misconduct. The Commissioner argued that the respondent had failed to meet his financial obligations in relation to an employed solicitor, which constituted professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. The case was heard in the Legal Services Court of New South Wales, where the Commissioner was required to prove the allegations on the balance of probabilities.

The court had to determine whether the respondent's failure to meet his financial obligations amounted to professional misconduct and unsatisfactory professional conduct. Further, the court needed to decide if the alleged conduct occurred in connection with the practice of law, and if it fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner should uphold. Additionally, the court had to assess if the conduct involved a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence.

The court found that the Commissioner had not proven the allegations of professional misconduct on the balance of probabilities. The court considered the evidence presented by both parties and concluded that the respondent's conduct did not meet the required threshold for striking off his name from the legal practitioners' roll. The Commissioner's application was dismissed, and the court ordered that any party seeking an order for costs must file and serve submissions within seven days of the publication of these reasons, with the other party having a further seven days to file and serve submissions in reply.

No further orders were made by the court. The respondent's name remains on the legal practitioners' roll, and the matter is concluded.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application is dismissed.

2. Any party applying for an order for costs is to file and serve submissions in support of the application within seven days of the publication of these reasons; and the other party is to file and serve submissions in reply within a further period of seven days.

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 Redmond [2018] QCAT 231
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant)
v
WILLIAM HANRON REDMOND (respondent)
APPLICATION NO/S:	OCR056-17
MATTER TYPE:	Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:	17 July 2018
HEARING DATE:	9 May 2018
HEARD AT:	Brisbane
DECISION OF:	Hon Peter Lyons QC, Judicial Member Assisted by: Mr Scott Anderson Mr Keith Revell
ORDERS:	1. The application is dismissed. 2. Any party applying for an order for costs is to file and serve submissions in support of the application within seven days of the publication of these reasons; and the other party is to file and serve submissions in reply within a further period of seven days.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – OTHER MATTERS – where respondent allegedly failed to meet financial obligations in regards to an employed solicitor – whether professional misconduct – whether conduct happened in connection with the practice of law – whether conduct fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner – whether conduct involved a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 5(1), s 28, s 418, s 419, s 452, s 656C, Adamson v Queensland Law Society Inc (1990) 1 Qd R 498 Allinson v General Council of Medical Education and Registration [1894] 1 QB 750 Council of the Law Society of the ACT v Legal Practitioner N1 [2016] ACAT 36 Council of the Law Society of NSW v Adams [2010] NSWADT 177 Council of the Law Society of NSW v Andreone [2014] NSWCATOD 49 Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Dalla [2011] NSW ADT 130 Council of the Law Society of NSW v Etherington [2016] NSWCATOD 31 Council of the Law Society of NSW v Kingston [2014] NSW CATOD 21 Kennedy v The Council of the Incorporated Law Institute of New South Wales (1939) ALJ 563 Law Society of NSW v Bouzanis [2006] NSWADT 55 Law Society of New South Wales v Delpopolo [2014] NSWCATOD 55 Law Society of New South Wales v Gillroy [2010] NSWADT 232 Law Society of New South Wales v Koffel [2010] NSWADT 149 Law Society of New South Wales v Vosnakis [2007] NSWADT 42 Legal Services Commissioner v Budgen [2011] QCAT 223 Legal Services Commissioner v Hope [2010] QCAT 184
APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:	D A Holliday of Counsel instructed by the Legal Services Commission
Respondent:	S Ford, Solicitor of Gilshenan & Luton