NEIL and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE

The case involved an application by the plaintiff, Mr. Neil, for leave to apply for a review of a decision by the Legal Profession Complaints Committee to dismiss his complaint against the defendant, Cocks Macnish. The plaintiff sought access to company records of the first and second defendants, which had been ordered by the Master on 1 March 2005. The defendants, represented by Jackson McDonald, opposed the application. The primary legal issue before the court was whether the plaintiff's complaints were unreasonable and turned solely on their own facts. The court was also required to determine whether the plaintiff's statutory rights under the Corporations Act were being obstructed by the defendants.

The court examined the terms of the order made by the Master and found that the plaintiff had statutory rights to access the company records of the first and second defendants. The court considered whether the defendants had obstructed the plaintiff's exercise of these rights and found that they had. The court noted that the defendants had been given notice of the order and had not taken steps to comply with it. The court also found that the plaintiff's complaints were not unreasonable and turned on their own facts. The court held that the plaintiff's application for leave to apply for review of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee's decision should be granted.

The court made an order granting the plaintiff leave to apply for review of the Legal Profession Complaints Committee's decision. The court also made an order that the defendants and their servants and agents be restrained from obstructing, preventing, hindering or delaying the exercise of the plaintiff's statutory rights under the Corporations Act. The court further ordered that the defendants advise the plaintiff in writing within two days from the date of the order where the books and records of the first and second defendants were held and where they could be inspected and copied by the plaintiff. The costs of the application were reserved, and there was liberty to apply.