QRS v Legal Profession Board of Tasmania (No 2)

The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania considered an appeal by QRS, a legal practitioner, against a decision of the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania. The dispute concerned QRS's entitlement to recover costs as a solicitor acting in his own proceedings, despite not holding a current practising certificate at the time the costs were incurred.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether a legal practitioner, who is admitted to practice but does not hold a current practising certificate, can claim costs as a solicitor acting in their own proceedings. This required the Court to interpret the relevant provisions of the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Tas) and consider the implications of holding admission versus holding a practising certificate for the recovery of costs.

The Court reasoned that the right to recover costs as a solicitor acting in person is contingent upon being a "legal practitioner" within the meaning of the *Legal Profession Act*. It held that while QRS was admitted to practice, he was not a "legal practitioner" for the purposes of the Act when he did not hold a practising certificate. Consequently, he was not entitled to recover costs as a solicitor acting in his own proceedings. The Court applied the principle that a practising certificate is a prerequisite for a lawyer to engage in legal practice and, by extension, to claim costs in that capacity.

The appeal was dismissed, and QRS was not awarded costs as a solicitor acting in person.