Meagher and Victorian Bar Incorporated

This matter concerned an application by a New Zealand-registered barrister to be registered as a barrister in Victoria under the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997 (Cth). The applicant, who had been admitted to the Supreme Court of Victoria and obtained a principal practising certificate, sought to practise as a barrister in Victoria. The Victorian Bar resolved to allow his application for a practising certificate subject to obtaining compulsory professional indemnity insurance, but refused him membership of the Victorian Bar. The applicant contended that the imposition of insurance conditions and the refusal of membership constituted a breach of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was asked to review the Victorian Bar's decisions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the Victorian Bar, as a local registration authority, had acted contrary to the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act by imposing certain conditions on the applicant's registration and by refusing him membership. Specifically, the court had to consider the obligations of local registration authorities under section 39 of the Act, which requires them to facilitate the operation of the Act and use their powers to impose conditions in a way that promotes the Trans-Tasman mutual recognition principle. The court also had to determine whether the insurance conditions imposed were more onerous than would be imposed in similar circumstances and whether the refusal of membership was permissible under the Act.

The court reasoned that section 39 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act imposes a duty on local registration authorities to facilitate the Act's operation and promote the mutual recognition principle. It noted that the Victorian Bar, through a delegation from the Victorian Legal Services Board, had the power to grant practising certificates. While the court acknowledged the applicant's entitlement to practise as a barrister in Victoria, it found that the Victorian Bar's decision to refuse membership was not reviewable by the Tribunal, as membership was distinct from the right to practise. The court affirmed the decision under review, indicating that the Victorian Bar had not acted contrary to the Act in its handling of the practising certificate application, subject to the specific conditions imposed.