MCGEOUGH and LAW COMPLAINTS OFFICER AS THE DELEGATE OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

The parties involved in this case are the Applicant, MCGEOUGH, and the First Respondent, LAW COMPLAINTS OFFICER, who is acting as the delegate of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee. The dispute concerns an application for review of the First Respondent's decision to dismiss a complaint about legal practitioners. The Legal Profession Complaints Committee decided to dismiss the complaint under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA). The Applicant sought a review of this decision by the State Administrative Tribunal, which is the court in this matter.

The legal issues that the court had to decide were whether the Tribunal could review the decision of the First Respondent to dismiss the complaint, and whether the complaint should be dealt with under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) or the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA). The court had to consider whether the complaint was trivial, unreasonable, vexatious or frivolous, and whether the Applicant had a direct personal interest in the complaint. The court also had to consider the effect of the repeal of the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) and the commencement of the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA) on the application for review.

The court held that the Applicant did not need leave from the Tribunal to proceed with the review because the First Respondent had specifically found the complaint to be misconceived and lacking in substance. The court also held that if the Tribunal set aside the decision to dismiss the complaint under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), the complaint would be taken to have been made under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA). If the Tribunal affirmed the decision to dismiss the complaint under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), the complaint would be taken to have ended under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA). The court concluded that the decision to dismiss the complaint was affirmed because there was no reasonable likelihood that the Tribunal might find the practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct if the matter was referred to it.

The court ordered that the decision of the First Respondent to dismiss the complaint was affirmed. The court held that the complaint was misconceived and lacking in substance and that there was no reasonable likelihood that the Tribunal might find the practitioner guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct if the matter was referred to it. The court also held that the complaint should be dealt with under the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA) because the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) had been repealed and replaced by the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA).