Legal Services Commissioner v Scott - [2014] QCA 266

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Legal Services Commissioner v Scott [2014] QCA 266

PARTIES:

LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)
v
EMANUELA EVE SCOTT
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 10920 of 2013
SC No 3458 of 2010

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court of Queensland

DELIVERED ON:

17 October 2014

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

10 September 2014

JUDGES:

Fraser JA and Atkinson and Alan Wilson JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made

ORDER:

That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application to be assessed.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURTS – where the respondent was admitted to the legal profession in 2010 – where the respondent failed to declare income to the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink between 2004 and 2008 – where the respondent did not disclose that failure to declare income to the Court at the time of applying for admission – where the undeclared income was brought to the applicant Legal Services Commissioner’s attention in 2012 when the respondent was bringing personal injury proceedings following a motor vehicle accident – where, had the respondent disclosed that failure to declare income at the time of her admission application, it may have borne adversely on the question of whether she was a fit and proper person to be admitted to practice – where the Commissioner applies for the Court to make any order it deems appropriate in its inherent jurisdiction as to the admission of the respondent, and for the respondent to pay the Commissioner’s costs – whether any orders should be made by the Court as to the respondent’s admission to legal practice, and what form any such orders should take

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 13, s 31, s 35, s 39, s 51, s 227, s 590, s 659, Pt 2.3, Pt 4.9, Ch 4, Ch 7
Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 (Qld)
Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld), r 13

Cohen v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (No 2)[2012] QCA 106, cited
In re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409; [1947] HCA 53, cited
Re: Hampton[2002] QCA 129, cited
Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282, cited
Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Cowley & Anor [2010] QSC 65, cited
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hendrick Jan van Es [2014] NSWCA 169, cited
Re Warren [1976] VR 406; [1976] VicRp 38, cited
Re Wong [2006] VSC 471, cited

COUNSEL:

J Bell QC for the applicant
A J Morris QC, with P Tucker, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Legal Services Commission for the applicant
Porter Davies for the respondent

FRASER JA: I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Alan Wilson J. I agree with those reasons and with the order proposed by his Honour.

ATKINSON J: I agree with the order proposed…

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 Scott 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: [2014] QCA 266
Decision Date: 17 October 2014

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Legal Services Commissioner, acting on behalf of the Supreme Court of Queensland, brought proceedings against Scott, a lawyer admitted to practice in 2010, to address issues concerning Scott's fitness to practice. The central issue arose from Scott's failure to declare income to the Australian Taxation Office and Centrelink between 2004 and 2008, and her omission to disclose this failure when applying for admission to the legal profession. This omission came to light in 2012 when Scott initiated personal injury proceedings following a motor vehicle accident. The Commissioner argued that had Scott disclosed this information at the time of her admission application, it might have adversely affected the determination of her suitability to be admitted.

The court was tasked with deciding whether any orders should be made regarding Scott's admission and, if so, what form those orders should take. The court considered the importance of maintaining the integrity and public confidence in the legal profession and the potential impact of Scott's conduct on her fitness to practice. The Commissioner sought the court's inherent jurisdiction to make appropriate orders concerning Scott's admission and for Scott to pay the Commissioner's costs.

The court found that Scott's failure to declare income was a serious matter that undermined her integrity, a fundamental requirement for legal practitioners. The court concluded that Scott's conduct warranted disciplinary action and ordered that Scott pay the Commissioner's costs of the application to be assessed. The court did not, however, revoke Scott's admission to practice but emphasised the seriousness of her conduct and the need for future compliance with professional standards.

Orders

Orders of the court

That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application to be assessed.

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 Scott [2014] QCA 266
PARTIES:	LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER (applicant) v EMANUELA EVE SCOTT (respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 10920 of 2013 SC No 3458 of 2010
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court of Queensland
DELIVERED ON:	17 October 2014
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	10 September 2014
JUDGES:	Fraser JA and Atkinson and Alan Wilson JJ Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made
ORDER:	That the respondent pay the applicant’s costs of this application to be assessed.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – JURISDICTION OF SUPREME COURTS – where the respondent was admitted to the legal profession in 2010 – where the respondent failed to declare income to the Australian Tax Office and Centrelink between 2004 and 2008 – where the respondent did not disclose that failure to declare income to the Court at the time of applying for admission – where the undeclared income was brought to the applicant Legal Services Commissioner’s attention in 2012 when the respondent was bringing personal injury proceedings following a motor vehicle accident – where, had the respondent disclosed that failure to declare income at the time of her admission application, it may have borne adversely on the question of whether she was a fit and proper person to be admitted to practice – where the Commissioner applies for the Court to make any order it deems appropriate in its inherent jurisdiction as to the admission of the respondent, and for the respondent to pay the Commissioner’s costs – whether any orders should be made by the Court as to the respondent’s admission to legal practice, and what form any such orders should take Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 13, s 31, s 35, s 39, s 51, s 227, s 590, s 659, Pt 2.3, Pt 4.9, Ch 4, Ch 7 Legal Profession (Solicitors) Rule 2007 (Qld) Supreme Court (Admission) Rules 2004 (Qld), r 13 Cohen v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (No 2)[2012] QCA 106, cited In re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409; [1947] HCA 53, cited Re: Hampton[2002] QCA 129, cited Myers v Elman [1940] AC 282, cited Perpetual Trustee Company Limited v Cowley & Anor [2010] QSC 65, cited Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hendrick Jan van Es [2014] NSWCA 169, cited Re Warren [1976] VR 406; [1976] VicRp 38, cited Re Wong [2006] VSC 471, cited
COUNSEL:	J Bell QC for the applicant A J Morris QC, with P Tucker, for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Legal Services Commission for the applicant Porter Davies for the respondent