Makowski v Legal Profession Admission Board

MAKOWSKI
v
LEGAL PROFESSION ADMISSION BOARD
[2021] HCASL 36
S243/2020

The applicant is a student-at-law. The NSW Admission Board Rules 2015 prescribe the sequence in which certain examinations must be undertaken and passed by students-at-law in order to qualify for a Diploma in Law. The rule may be relaxed by the respondent, its Examinations Committee, or its delegate, the Executive Officer, "in circumstances which it regards as sufficiently special", so as to permit a student-at-law to sit a subject out of the prescribed sequence.
The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Macfarlan and Brereton JJA) dismissing the applicant's application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Cavanagh J) dismissing the applicant's application for judicial review, with costs, in respect of a decision of the Examinations Committee of the respondent to confirm a decision of the Acting Executive Officer of the respondent. The Acting Executive Officer refused the applicant's application for permission to enrol in Equity and Commercial Transactions in the Winter 2019 session, despite the applicant not having completed Contracts or Australian Constitutional Law, and also decided not to process a second application for relaxation of the progression rule in respect of the same subjects for Term 2 of 2019.
The applicant identifies no error of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider. The applicant requires an extension of time, but it would be futile to grant the extension which is sought. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Court of Appeal. The application should be dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward

4 March 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia was asked to consider an application for special leave to appeal from a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, a student-at-law, sought to appeal against the dismissal of their application for leave to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The Supreme Court had dismissed the student's application for judicial review, which contested a decision of the Examinations Committee of the Legal Profession Admission Board. The Committee had refused the student's request to enrol in certain law subjects out of the prescribed sequence and declined to process a second application for the same subjects.

The legal issues that the court had to resolve included whether the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the student's application for leave to appeal, and whether the Examinations Committee's decision to refuse the student's request to enrol in specific subjects out of sequence was lawful and reasonable. The student argued that the decision was made without proper consideration of the circumstances and without adequate justification. The court was also required to determine whether the Court of Appeal had applied the correct legal principles in dismissing the student's application for leave to appeal.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the student's application for leave to appeal. The court held that the Examinations Committee's decision to refuse the student's request to enrol in certain law subjects out of sequence was not flawed and was made in accordance with the applicable rules and principles. The court also found that the Court of Appeal had applied the correct legal principles in dismissing the student's application for leave to appeal, and that there was no error of principle that warranted the attention of the High Court. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the student's appeal was ultimately unsuccessful.

The High Court made an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal. The order was signed and sealed by the Registrar, and the applicant's appeal was denied. The decision of the Court of Appeal was upheld, and the student's application for judicial review was dismissed. The court found that the Examinations Committee's decision to refuse the student's request to enrol in certain law subjects out of sequence was lawful and reasonable, and that the Court of Appeal had correctly dismissed the student's application for leave to appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established