Obrart v Grego (No.2)

In *Obrart v Grego (No.2)*, the Federal Circuit Court of Australia considered whether to refer a legal practitioner's conduct to the relevant regulatory body following the dismissal of a creditor's petition. The initial petition filed by Ms Obrart against Mr Grego had been dismissed by the court. Following this dismissal, the judge indicated an intention to list the matter for a hearing to consider a referral to the Legal Services Commission, particularly if there was a basis for finding that documents had been fabricated, although no such finding was made in the initial judgment.

The court was required to determine whether it possessed the power to inquire into the conduct of a legal practitioner appearing before it and whether such conduct warranted referral to a regulatory body. The court also considered the evidence and submissions presented regarding the alleged impropriety.

The judge relied on the decision of the Full Federal Court in *De Pardo v Legal Practitioners Complaint Committee*, specifically the reasoning of French J, which affirmed that federal courts have an implied incidental power to regulate the conduct of legal practitioners to ensure the observance of their duties and the integrity of court procedures. The court viewed its role as having the power to at least inquire into conduct and consider referral. After hearing extensive submissions and expert evidence, the judge decided not to refer the matter to the Legal Services Commission. This decision was based not on a finding of no impropriety, but on a personal reluctance to add to the distress already experienced by Ms Obrart, while also noting that no finding of impropriety had been made against her. The court reiterated that the initial judgment had only found a basis for considering impropriety, which shifted the onus to Ms Obrart to demonstrate an absence of impropriety, a burden that was not discharged on the evidence presented in the original proceedings.