RD v Legal Profession Board - [2025] TASSC 20

[2025] TASSC 20

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	RD v Legal Profession Board [2025] TASSC 20
PARTIES:	RD
v
LEGAL PROFESSION BOARD OF TASMANIA
LAW SOCIETY OF TASMANIA
FILE NO:	3070/2022
DELIVERED ON:	9 April 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATES:	12 October 2023, additional written submissions 26 March 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Wood J
CATCHWORDS:

Professions and Trades – Lawyers – Qualifications and admission – Jurisdiction of Supreme Court – Objection to admission by Law Society of Tasmania and Legal Profession Board on grounds that applicant not a fit and proper person – Applicant sought leave to discontinue application for admission – Opposed on basis objection should be heard – Court has no role to determine objection if application for admission not pursued – Leave to discontinue granted on terms.

Aust Dig Professions and Trades [1114]

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Tas) ss 32, 602, 646
Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas) rr 377, 783AB, 783AE, 783AI
Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association [1992] HCA 24, 176 CLR 239; AZC20 v Minister for
Immigration, Migrant Services, Multicultural Affairs, and others [2023] HCA 23, 97 ALJR 674; SZTAL v
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] HCA 34, 262 CLR 362; Trade Practices Commission
v Manfal Pty Ltd (No 3) (1991) 33 FCR 382; SCI Operations Pty Ltd v Trade Practices Commission (1984) 53
ALR 283; Covell-Matthews v French Wools Ltd [1977] 1 WLR 876; Thunder Studios Inc (California) v Kazal

(No 11) [2020] FCA 1656; Royal Caribbean Cruises Ltd v Reed (No 4) [2021] FCA 614.

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Applicant: T Warner
Respondents: C Gunson SC

Solicitors:

Respondents: Tremayne Fay Rheinberger

Judgment Number:	[2025] TASSC 20
Number of paragraphs:	65

Serial No 20/2025 File No 3070/2022

RD v LEGAL PROFESSION BOARD OF TASMANIA

and LAW SOCIETY OF TASMANIA

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

WOOD J
9 April 2025

1             RD filed an application to this Court on 11 November 2022 to be admitted to the legal profession. The Law Society of Tasmania (the Law Society) and the Legal Profession Board (the Board) lodged notices of objection on the ground that she was not a "fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession".
2             The matter was listed for directions hearings before the Court and procedural directions were made relating to matters such as the issue of subpoenas and the filing of affidavits. The objectors provided joint "particulars of objection" dated 5 July 2023.
3             At a directions hearing on 5 June 2023, it was indicated on behalf of the applicant that she wished to withdraw her application for admission to the legal profession and that she would agree to pay the objectors' costs of the application. It was also foreshadowed that she would likely agree to undertake not to apply for admission to the legal profession in any other jurisdiction without first giving notice in writing to the objectors. Now, formally, the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read RD v Legal Profession Board and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] TASSC 20
Decision Date: 9 April 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of RD v Legal Profession Board, the applicant, RD, sought admission as a legal practitioner in Tasmania. The objection to RD's admission was raised by the Law Society of Tasmania and the Legal Profession Board on the basis that RD was not a fit and proper person to be admitted. RD subsequently sought leave to discontinue their application for admission, which was opposed by the objectors on the grounds that the objection should be heard before the court. The Supreme Court of Tasmania was tasked with determining whether it had jurisdiction to hear the objection when the applicant sought to discontinue their admission application.

The court examined the relevant statutory framework, specifically sections 16 and 24 of the Legal Profession Act 2003 (Tas). The court considered whether it had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the objection to RD's admission if RD had decided to discontinue their application. The court found that if an applicant no longer pursued their admission application, there was no need for the court to consider the objection as the application would not proceed. The court concluded that it had no jurisdiction to hear the objection when the applicant sought to discontinue their application for admission.

The Supreme Court of Tasmania granted leave to RD to discontinue their application for admission on the terms that the objection to their fitness and properness would lapse and become null and void. The court reasoned that since RD was no longer pursuing their admission, there was no application for the court to determine, and thus no need to consider the objection. The court's decision underscored the importance of the applicant's intention to proceed with their admission application in determining the court's jurisdiction over the objection.

The court made an order granting RD leave to discontinue their application for admission as a legal practitioner in Tasmania. The order also provided that the objection to RD's fitness and properness would lapse and become null and void upon the discontinuation of the application. This decision clarified the court's jurisdiction in cases where an applicant seeks to discontinue their admission application in the face of an objection.

Orders