Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
- Summary available
Medium Neutral Citation: Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner [2020] NSWCA 84 Hearing dates: 18 February 2020 Decision date: 07 May 2020 Before: Basten JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
McCallum JA at [3]Decision: Dismiss the summons for leave to appeal with costs
Catchwords: APPEAL – application for leave to appeal – proposed appeal from order dismissing summons for judicial review – decision of the Legal Services Commissioner not to conduct an internal review of a decision of the Law Society to close a complaint against a solicitor –power to conduct a review at the “absolute discretion” of the Commissioner – no arguable error identified in primary judge’s decision to dismiss the summons Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101(2)(r)
Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 266(1), 300, 313(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 51.14Cases Cited: D’Orta Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 223 CLR 1; [2005] HCA 12
Hamod v State of New South Wales [2011] NSWCA 375
Hot Holdings Pty Ltd v Creasy (1996) 185 CLR 149; [1996] HCA 44
La La Land Byron Bay Pty Ltd v The Independent Liquor and Gaming Authority [2015] NSWCA 254
Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd [2014] FCCA 1042
Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 246
Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd as Trustee for Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Trust (District Court (NSW), Balla DCJ, 12 June 2014, unrep)
Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd as Trustee for Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Trust (District Court (NSW), Balla DCJ, 27 June 2014, unrep)
Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd as Trustee for Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Trust (District Court (NSW), McLoughlin DCJ, 6 November 2015, unrep)
Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd as Trustee for Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Trust (District Court (NSW), McLoughlin DCJ, 18 November 2015, unrep)
Mendonca v Dooley & Associates Solicitors Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 144
Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner [2019] NSWSC 409
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v SZSSJ (2016) 259 CLR 180; [2016] HCA 29
Secretary, Department of Family and Community Services v Smith (2017) 95 NSWLR 597; [2017] NSWCA 206
XYZ v State Trustees Limited [2006] VSC 444Category: Principal judgment Parties: Gerard Mendoca (Applicant)
Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Applicant self-represented
R Withana (Respondent)
Office of the Legal Services Commissioner (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/142142 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Civil
- Citation:
- Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner [2019] NSWSC 409
- Date of Decision:
- 16 April 2019
- Before:
- Wilson J
- File Number(s):
- 2018/00214619
Judgment
-
BASTEN JA: I agree with McCallum JA.
-
LEEMING JA: I agree with McCallum JA.
-
McCALLUM JA: Gerard Mendonca brought proceedings in the District Court against his former employer seeking annual bonus payments to which he claimed to have a contractual entitlement. The judge disbelieved Mr…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Mendonca v Legal Services Commissioner and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2020] NSWCA 84
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, Mendonca, sought leave to appeal from an order of the primary judge that dismissed a summons for judicial review. The judicial review concerned a decision by the Legal Services Commissioner not to conduct an internal review of a decision made by the Law Society to close a complaint against a solicitor.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the summons for judicial review. This required the Court to consider the scope of the Commissioner's power to conduct an internal review, which was described as being at the "absolute discretion" of the Commissioner, and whether any arguable error in the primary judge's decision could be identified.
The Court of Appeal found that no arguable error had been demonstrated in the primary judge's decision to dismiss the summons. The Court affirmed that the Commissioner's power to conduct a review was indeed discretionary, and that the applicant had failed to identify any basis upon which that discretion had been exercised improperly or in error.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the summons for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge erred in dismissing the summons for judicial review. This required the Court to consider the scope of the Commissioner's power to conduct an internal review, which was described as being at the "absolute discretion" of the Commissioner, and whether any arguable error in the primary judge's decision could be identified.
The Court of Appeal found that no arguable error had been demonstrated in the primary judge's decision to dismiss the summons. The Court affirmed that the Commissioner's power to conduct a review was indeed discretionary, and that the applicant had failed to identify any basis upon which that discretion had been exercised improperly or in error.
Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the summons for leave to appeal be dismissed with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
Dismiss the summons for leave to appeal with costs
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.