Little and The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association

This matter concerned an application by a barrister registered in New Zealand for registration in New South Wales, Victoria, Western Australia, and the Australian Capital Territory under the *Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997* (Cth) (TTMRA). The applicant sought to have the refusal decisions of these Australian jurisdictions set aside and remitted for assessment of equivalency of occupation. The respondents argued that the applicant's New Zealand occupation was not equivalent to that of a barrister in Australia, and further, that the applicant lacked standing due to the lapse of his New Zealand practising certificate.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant's occupation as an employed barrister in New Zealand was equivalent to the occupation of a barrister registered in the Australian jurisdictions for the purposes of the TTMRA. It also had to consider whether the applicant's current registration in New Zealand was a prerequisite for entitlement to registration in Australia, and whether the applicant was entitled to registration by default under s 20(4) of the TTMRA in relation to the Australian Capital Territory.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an occupation to be considered equivalent under s 28 of the TTMRA, the activities authorised by each registration must be substantially the same. It found that the New Zealand registration, which permitted the applicant to practice as an employed barrister under supervision, was not substantially the same as the unrestricted registration of a barrister in the Australian jurisdictions. Furthermore, the Tribunal held that a current practising certificate in the home jurisdiction was a necessary condition for seeking registration under the TTMRA, and as the applicant's New Zealand certificate had lapsed, he was no longer entitled to the benefits of the Act.

The Tribunal affirmed the refusal decisions of New South Wales, Victoria, and Western Australia. It found that the refusals by Western Australia on 5 May and 2 June 2023 constituted reviewable decisions within the statutory timeframe, thus rendering s 20(4) inapplicable to that jurisdiction. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant's failure to maintain his New Zealand practising certificate meant he was not entitled to registration in any of the Australian jurisdictions.