Patel v The Law Society of NSW

[1999] NSWCA 372

CITATION:	Patel v The Law Society of NSW [1999] NSWCA 372
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40630/99
HEARING DATE(S):	1 October 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	1 October 1999
PARTIES :	Shushil Ramanbhai Patel v The Law Society of New South Wales
JUDGMENT OF:	Mason P at 1; Meagher JA at 19; Davies AJA at 20

COUNSEL:	C: TA Williams O: R Bellamy
SOLICITORS:	C: TA Williams, Sydney O: RJ Collins, Sydney
CATCHWORDS:	Summons for order to stay any suspension of right to practise as a legal practitioner in NSW - Whether prohibition of reinstatement of claimant on the Roll of Solicitors of the Law Society of England and Wales is equivalent to suspension or removal from the roll for the purposes of Pt 65A r 3 of the NSW Supreme Court Rules.
ACTS CITED:	Solicitors Act 1974 (UK) Supreme Court Rules
DECISION:	Summons dismissed, no order as to costs.

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

CA40630/99

MASON P
MEAGHER JA
DAVIES AJA

Friday, 1 October 1999

Shushil Ramanbhai PATEL
v THE LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES

JUDGMENT

1    MASON P: The claimant was admitted to the Roll of Solicitors of the Supreme Court of England and Wales in 1977. That roll is kept by The Law Society of England and Wales (see Solicitors Act 1974 (UK) s6). He practised as a solicitor in London between May 1980 and about November 1987. He sold his practice and moved to Canada in mid 1988 and did not practise law in that country. In March 1990 he moved to Australia and applied for admission as a solicitor of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He was duly admitted in May 1990 and obtained a practising certificate. 2    In support of his application for admission here, he obtained a letter from the Law Society of England and Wales which confirmed that no disciplinary proceedings were recorded against him and that there was nothing to his discredit. 3    Despite this letter and apparently unknown to the claimant, disciplinary proceedings were afoot in the United Kingdom. Formal notice of these proceedings was served on the claimant in July 1997. The proceedings were listed for hearing before the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal of England and Wales on 7 August 1997. 4    Not long after being served with the process, the claimant wrote to the Solicitors' Disciplinary Tribunal disputing the allegations but indicating that he would not be appearing to defend the charges. 5    On 7 August 1997 the Tribunal ordered that the claimant's name be struck off the Roll of Solicitors. However, it subsequently became known to the Tribunal that the claimant's name had already been removed from that roll as part of an ordinary administrative process. Apparently the claimant had, when he left Britain, ceased to pay appropriate fees and his name was consequently removed. 6    On 7 October 1997 the Tribunal published its reasons, finding the allegations of misconduct brought against the claimant to have been substantiated. The Tribunal indicated, however, that…