Leonard Gandini v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

[2014] HCASL 247

LEONARD GANDINI

v

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

[2014] HCASL 247
P40/2013

1. On 8 June 2011, the applicant, a legal practitioner, was found guilty of professional misconduct by the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia ("the Tribunal") under s 438(2) of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA). The applicant had appeared ex parte before Master Sanderson of the Supreme Court seeking an extension of time in which to file an application on behalf of his client. The Tribunal found that the applicant misled Master Sanderson by asserting that his opponent in the proceedings did not oppose the extension. The Tribunal also found that the applicant, in a letter to his opponent, intentionally misrepresented that the application was validly filed without the need for an extension of time.

2. On 1 August 2013, the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (McLure P and Murphy and Mazza JJA) allowed the applicant's appeal against the decision of the Tribunal, in part.  The Court found that there was insufficient evidence for the Tribunal to have been satisfied that the applicant had intentionally misled Master Sanderson but upheld the Tribunal's finding that the applicant had intentionally misled a fellow practitioner. 

3. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court on the ground that the Court of Appeal denied him procedural fairness by allowing the respondent to submit material after the hearing had concluded.  The applicant also contends that it was not open on the evidence before the Court of Appeal to conclude that the applicant had engaged in deliberately misleading conduct.  We note that, on 20 November 2014, the applicant filed submissions in reply to the respondent's submissions.  The applicant's reply was filed late, but we have considered its contents in reaching our conclusion on this application.  We have also had regard to the respondent's amended summary of argument filed on 2 December 2014. 

4. No question of principle falls for determination in this application.  The applicant has failed to identify any prejudice resulting from the receipt of the documents by the Court of Appeal.  The application for special leave is refused. 

5. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. 

S.M. Kiefel
11 December 2014 P.A. Keane