Makowski v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 3)

In the case of Makowski v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 3), the applicant, Mr Makowski, sought to appeal the decision of the Legal Profession Admission Board to refuse his admission to practice as a solicitor. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which was required to determine whether the Board's decision was lawful and whether the costs incurred by the Board should be awarded to the applicant. The Board argued that the applicant's conduct during the proceedings constituted an abuse of process, which warranted the imposition of costs.

The court had to decide whether the applicant's conduct during the course of the proceedings was such that it warranted the imposition of costs against him. The Board submitted that the applicant had engaged in a pattern of misconduct, including making false statements, providing misleading information, and failing to comply with court orders. The applicant, on the other hand, argued that the Board's decision was based on irrelevant and prejudicial factors and that the imposition of costs would be unjust and oppressive.

The court held that the applicant's conduct during the course of the proceedings was indeed misconduct and that it warranted the imposition of costs against him. The court found that the applicant had made false statements and provided misleading information to the Board, which had led to an abuse of the court process. The court further held that the imposition of costs was necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to deter similar conduct in the future. The court awarded costs to the Board, subject to certain exceptions that were deemed appropriate in the circumstances.

The court made an order that the applicant pay the Board's costs of and incidental to the proceedings, subject to certain exceptions that were set out in the judgment. The court held that the applicant's conduct during the proceedings was such that it warranted the imposition of costs against him, and that the exceptions to the general rule that costs follow the event did not apply in this case. The court further held that the imposition of costs was necessary to uphold the integrity of the legal profession and to deter similar conduct in the future.