Peter Christison Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee

[2013] HCASL 189

PETER CHRISTISON NEIL

v

LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE & ANOR

[2013] HCASL 189
P26/2012

1. The applicant made a complaint to the Legal Profession Complaints Committee ("the Committee") concerning the second respondent, a legal practitioner ("the practitioner").  He contended that the practitioner had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct and professional misconduct in relation to proceedings in the Supreme Court of Western Australia between the applicant and a Mr Nugent.  The practitioner was acting as the Western Australian agent for Victorian solicitors, who were retained on Mr Nugent's behalf and on behalf of related companies in the litigation.  The applicant contended that the practitioner failed to ensure that his clients fully complied with their disclosure obligations, breached a personal undertaking to produce missing documents, and acted for multiple clients with conflicting interests.  The Committee found the complaint was unreasonable and dismissed it. 

2. The applicant unsuccessfully sought leave to appeal from the Committee's decision to the State Administrative Tribunal of Western Australia ("the Tribunal"). 

3. The applicant applied for leave to appeal on a question of law from the orders of the Tribunal to the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia[1].  At the hearing before the Court of Appeal (Pullin, Buss and Murphy JJA) the applicant applied to Pullin JA to recuse himself because of a reasonable apprehension of bias.  There were two strands to the application.  First, Pullin JA had been Chairman of the Committee between 1993 and 2001.  Secondly, Pullin JA was a member of the Court of Appeal in a case in which the applicant and the Committee were parties.  In his reasons for decision in that case Pullin JA referred to a person against whom the applicant had made allegations of criminal misconduct by the use of an initial rather than by name.  Finally, the applicant contended that Pullin JA had wrongly altered the transcript of those proceedings.  Pullin JA declined to recuse himself holding that none of the applicant's contentions had merit[2]. 

   [1]State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105(1).

   [2]Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 at [2]-[8].

4. Murphy JA, giving the principal judgment of the Court, held that the applicant had not identified any error of law in the Tribunal's decision.  His Honour noted that the Tribunal found that there was no evidence the practitioner had a conflict of interest or had failed to comply with his disclosure obligations[3].  Claims that the applicant had been denied procedural fairness by the Committee[4] and the Tribunal[5] were also rejected.

   [3]Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 at [31], [35]-[36].

   [4]Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 at [33].

   [5]Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [No 2] [2012] WASCA 150 at [38], [47].

5. The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal.  The proposed grounds of appeal do not identify a question of law suitable for the grant of special leave.  No point of principle is raised and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. 

6. The challenge to Pullin JA's decision to sit to hear the case is unsustainable. 

7. The application is dismissed.

8. Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. 

V.M. Bell
3 December 2013 S.J. Gageler