Makowski v Legal Profession Admission Board

The case of Makowski v Legal Profession Admission Board was heard by the Federal Court of Australia. The plaintiff, a prospective lawyer, was seeking interim relief from a decision by the Legal Profession Admission Board to deny him admission to practice as a lawyer. The plaintiff argued that the Board had erred in its assessment of his fitness to practice law and that this error had prejudiced him in a way that warranted immediate judicial intervention. The case turned on whether the court had the jurisdiction to grant interim relief without first considering the merits of the Board’s decision through a review process.

The primary legal issues the court needed to address were whether the court had the authority to grant interim relief in these circumstances, and if so, whether such relief would be appropriate. The court needed to determine if there was a case for interim relief given that the plaintiff had not yet exhausted the internal review process provided by the Board. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the progression rule, which requires that internal review processes be completed before judicial review is sought, should be relaxed in this instance.

The court found that it did not have the jurisdiction to grant interim relief where the plaintiff had not first availed himself of the right of review on the merits. The court held that the progression rule was fundamental and that there was no utility in granting interim relief in such circumstances. The court emphasised that the rule was designed to ensure that administrative bodies had the opportunity to correct their errors before judicial intervention, and that this principle should not be relaxed lightly. As a result, the court dismissed the plaintiff's application for interim relief.

The court's decision was definitive and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the Board's costs of the application. The court held that the plaintiff's application for interim relief was not only premature but also futile, given that the Board had not yet had the opportunity to review the decision internally. The court concluded that the application was an abuse of process and that it should not have been entertained. The plaintiff was therefore left to pursue his claims through the proper review channels.