Muschinski v Dodds

[1985] HCA 77

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Gibbs C.J., Wilson, Brennan, Deane, Dawson JJ.

MICHAEL JOHN MOLONEY v. THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

6 December 1985

Decision

GIBBS C.J., WILSON, BRENNAN, DEANE, DAWSON JJ.: Having had the benefit of full argument on both sides, we have come to a firm conclusion that the findings of the Solicitors' Statutory Committee, read in the context of the evidence and of the Committee's reasons, warranted the Committee's order that the applicant's name be struck off the roll of solicitors of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. That being so, we consider that the decision of the Court of Appeal was correct and would refuse the application for special leave to appeal.

2. We note that we do not read the findings of the Statutory Committee as encompassing either a finding that the applicant was a knowing party to the actual deception of Mrs. Field or a finding that, putting to one side the applicant's costs for his professional services, he was knowingly a party to depriving Mrs. Field of property for his own benefit as well as for the benefit of Mrs. Field's son. Nor are we persuaded that the matters referred to in the judgment of Hutley A.P. in the Court of Appeal justified his Honour, who had not had the benefit of seeing and hearing Mrs. Field and the applicant give their evidence, in making the positive finding that the applicant "was a party to a nefarious scheme to deprive Mrs. Field of her property in the interests of Herbert (Field) and himself". We mention that matter because it appears to us that, in the event that a subsequent application for re-admission is made by the applicant, the question whether any positive finding to that effect was justified on the material before the Statutory Committee should be seen as remaining an open one which may require to be then resolved. We refrain from discussing the matter further lest anything we might say of an argumentative nature might unduly influence any resolution of that question or convey the false impression that we have formed any view about whether there are other matters in the record of proceedings, to which Hutley A.P. did not refer, which might have provided, of themselves or in combination with any of the matters to which his Honour did refer, an adequate foundation for such a further finding.

Orders

Application for special leave to appeal refused with costs.