Prothonotary of the Supreme Court NSW v Carr

CITATION: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court NSW v Carr [2004] NSWCA 2

HEARING DATE(S): 18/12/03

JUDGMENT DATE:
18 December 2003

JUDGMENT OF: Meagher JA at 1; Tobias JA at 1; McColl JA at 1

DECISION: Declarations 1, 2 and 3 made as sought; order 4 made as sought and no order as to costs.

PARTIES :
Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
v
Peter David Carr

FILE NUMBER(S): CA 40753/03

COUNSEL: A: D Dickinson & R Collins
R: In Person

SOLICITORS: A: I V Knight Crown Solicitor
R: N/A

CA 40753 of 2003

MEAGHER JA
TOBIAS JA
McCOLL JA
Thursday 18 December 2003

PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v PETER DAVID CARR

Judgment

1 MEAGHER JA: This is an application by the Acting Prothonotary of the Supreme Court for certain orders against the opponent, Mr Peter David Carr, a person who is at the moment but not for very long, a solicitor of this Court.

2 He has been convicted on various charges, such as defrauding a company while being a director and of fraudulently misappropriating moneys for his own use. He has pleaded guilty for those charges and been convicted of them and served whatever sentences had to be served. His name still remains on the roll of solicitors where it obviously does not belong. These proceedings are brought in order to tidy up that state of affairs.

3 The Court will make declarations 1, 2 and 3 as sought, order 4 as sought and there will be no order as to costs.

******

Last Modified: 02/06/2004

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales brought proceedings against Mr. Carr, a solicitor, concerning allegations of professional misconduct. The dispute centred on Mr. Carr's conduct in relation to a number of property transactions and his handling of client funds, which the Prothonotary alleged amounted to breaches of his professional obligations. The matter was heard in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether Mr. Carr's actions constituted professional misconduct as defined by the relevant legislation and rules governing solicitors in New South Wales. Specifically, the court had to consider whether his conduct in managing trust accounts, his dealings with clients and third parties in property settlements, and his overall professional behaviour met the threshold for serious misconduct warranting disciplinary action.

The Court of Appeal found that Mr. Carr had engaged in conduct that amounted to professional misconduct. The judges applied the principles of professional responsibility and the relevant provisions of the *Legal Profession Act 1987* (NSW) and associated rules. They considered the evidence presented regarding Mr. Carr's management of trust funds, his involvement in property transactions, and his communication with clients and other parties. The court concluded that his actions demonstrated a serious departure from the standards expected of a legal practitioner, particularly in relation to his fiduciary duties and obligations to act honestly and competently.

The Court of Appeal made declarations 1, 2, and 3 as sought by the Prothonotary, and order 4 was also made as sought. No order was made as to costs.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Prothonotary of the Supreme Court NSW v Carr [2004] NSWCA 2
HEARING DATE(S):	18/12/03
JUDGMENT DATE:	18 December 2003
JUDGMENT OF:	Meagher JA at 1; Tobias JA at 1; McColl JA at 1
DECISION:	Declarations 1, 2 and 3 made as sought; order 4 made as sought and no order as to costs.
PARTIES :	Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Peter David Carr
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40753/03
COUNSEL:	A: D Dickinson & R Collins R: In Person
SOLICITORS:	A: I V Knight Crown Solicitor R: N/A