QUEENSLAND CIVIL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CITATION:
Legal Services Commissioner v Williamson [2019] QCAT 82
PARTIES:
LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSIONER
(applicant)v JENNIFER LESLIE WILLIAMSON
(respondent)
APPLICATION NO:
071 of 2015
MATTER TYPE:
Occupational regulation matters
DELIVERED ON:
16 April 2019
HEARING DATE:
6 February 2018
HEARD AT:
Brisbane
DECISION OF:
Justice Daubney, President
Assisted by:
Mr Ken Horsley
Dr Margaret Steinberg AMORDERS:
1. The discipline application filed 29 April 2015 is dismissed.
2. The Tribunal will hear the parties as to costs.
CATCHWORDS:
PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – COMPLAINTS AND DISCIPLINE – PROFESSIONAL MISCONDUCT AND UNSATISFACTORY PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT – GENERAL – where the respondent is charged with witnessing a transferor’s signature on a land transfer which was not signed in her presence contrary to s 162 of the Land Title Act 1994 (Qld) – where the respondent is charged with acting without instructions in endorsing the transferee’s execution of the transfer – where the respondent is found to have allowed a transferor’s signature on the execution of a land transfer to be incorrectly dated – whether allowing a transferor’s signature on a land transfer to be incorrectly dated is unsatisfactory professional conduct within the meaning of s 418 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld)
Duties Act 2001 (Qld), s 16
Land Title Act 1994 (Qld), s 162
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 418, s 419, s 452, s 656CAdamson v Queensland Law Society [1990] 1 Qd R 498
Attorney-General v Bax [1999] 2 Qd R 9; [1998] QCA 089
Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34
De Kuyper v Crafter [1942] SASR 238
Legal Services Commissioner v Bone [2013] QCAT 550
Legal Services Commissioner v Laylee & Anor [2016] QCAT 237
Legal Services Commissioner v McClelland [2006] LPT 13
Legal Services Commissioner v Sorban [2009] LPT 5APPEARANCES & REPRESENTATION:
Applicant:
G R Rice QC, instructed by Legal Services Commissioner
Respondent:
G Page QC, with R Sibley, instructed by Williamson & Associates
REASONS FOR DECISION
On 11 January 2010, one Timothy John Henderson made an online complaint to the applicant, Legal Services Commissioner, about the respondent solicitor, Ms Jennifer Williamson. The complaint was said to have been made by Henderson “for and on behalf of Leanne Apostolakis”. The complaint form alleged:
The Respondent signed a Form 1 Title Document stating she witnessed the signatures on it before paying the duty payable, however the signature is a forgery and Mrs Apostolakis was not in the State of Queensland at that time.
The complaint form stated further:
On the 18th June, 2007, Jennifer Williamson witnessed a Land Titles Transfer Form 1, which was purportedly signed by Mrs Leanne Apostolakis on the 15th June 2007 and her husband, Mr Thomas Edward Apostolakis also on the 15th June, 2007.
The Titles Transfer Form shows that Ms Williamson then proceeded to pay the Duty on the Transfer which has been confirmed by the Office of State Revenue, however the titles was then never lodged.
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Legal Services Commissioner v Williamson 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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2019] QCAT 82
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the gravity and nature of the respondent’s actions, particularly the failure to ensure the correct execution dates were inserted on legal documents. The court emphasised the importance of meticulous attention to detail and adherence to legal requirements in professional practice. It was noted that the respondent's actions, while not amounting to serious professional misconduct, still represented a failure to meet the expected standards of professional conduct. The court found that allowing a transferor’s signature to be incorrectly dated did indeed constitute unsatisfactory professional conduct.
Given the findings, the court dismissed the discipline application filed on 29 April 2015, but directed that the parties be heard regarding costs. The outcome of the case underscores the necessity for legal practitioners to meticulously verify documents and accurately record execution dates to avoid similar issues in the future.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The discipline application filed 29 April 2015 is dismissed.
2. The Tribunal will hear the parties as to 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
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.