Practitioner D3 v Council of the Law Society of the Act

The applicant, a legal practitioner admitted to practise in the ACT, South Australia, and Victoria, was subject to disciplinary proceedings by the Law Society Council in the ACT, stemming from a complaint received in 2008. Over the years 2013 to 2018, the applicant brought various applications in relation to those proceedings, which were heard and determined by the Australian Capital Territory Civil and Administrative Tribunal (ACAT) and the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory (ACTSC). The applicant sought to have the disciplinary proceedings permanently stayed on the basis that they were an abuse of process, among other things. The applicant also sought to have the orders of the ACAT quashed on the basis that they were made pursuant to an invalid exercise of the Judicial Power of the Commonwealth. The Law Society Council applied for summary judgment on the ground that the proceeding was an abuse of process.

The legal issues the court was required to decide included whether the applicant's claims were an abuse of process, and whether the ACAT exercised federal jurisdiction contrary to section 75(iv) of the Constitution. The court also considered whether the applicant's claims were time-barred, and whether the Law Society Council failed to give reasons for its decisions, and did not pass a resolution to amend its original complaint in respect of the applicant's conduct.

The court held that the applicant's proceeding was an abuse of process as it was an attempt to relitigate issues that had already been determined by the ACAT and the ACTSC. The court also found that the ACAT did not exercise federal jurisdiction contrary to section 75(iv) of the Constitution, as the Australian Capital Territory is not a State. The court held that the applicant's claims were time-barred, and that the Law Society Council did not fail to give reasons for its decisions or pass a resolution to amend its original complaint. The court dismissed the proceeding, and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.

The court refused leave to amend the statement of claim, dismissed the proceeding, and ordered the applicant to pay the first respondent's costs of the proceeding on an indemnity basis.