Re Ayobi - [2018] QCA 1

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Ayobi [2018] QCA 1

PARTIES:

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD (QUEENSLAND)
(applicant/respondent)
v
WAHID AYOBI
(respondent/applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 917 of 2018
SC No 2537 of 2016

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Miscellaneous Application – Civil

DELIVERED ON:

30 January 2018

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 October 2017

JUDGES:

Holmes CJ and Boddice and Jackson JJ

ORDER:

The applicant pay the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board’s costs fixed at $7,000.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent/applicant had applied for admission as a legal practitioner – where a finding was made that the respondent/applicant had not been candid in his disclosure – where the respondent/applicant’s application had been withdrawn – where the applicant/respondent applied for an order that the respondent/applicant pay its costs – whether an order should be made that the respondent/applicant pay the applicant/respondent’s costs fixed at an amount that is less than an indemnity for costs

Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 13(1)

Barristers’ Board v Khan[2001] QCA 92, cited
Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186; [1960] HCA 40, cited
KMB v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (Queensland)[2017] QCA 146, cited
Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited
Re Ayobi [2017] QSC 130, related
Wentworth v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 239; [1992] HCA 24, cited

COUNSEL:

K Wilson QC for the applicant/respondent
The respondent/applicant appeared on his own behalf

SOLICITORS:

Jensen & Co for the applicant/respondent
The respondent/applicant appeared on his own behalf

HOLMES CJ: I agree with the reasons of Jackson J and with the order he proposes.
BODDICE J: I agree with Jackson J.
JACKSON J: The applicant's application for admission as a legal practitioner has been withdrawn. The remaining question is as to costs. The Legal Practitioners' Admissions Board ("LPAB") applies for an order that the applicant pay its costs.
On 10 October 2016, the applicant's application for admission as a legal practitioner was adjourned for consideration of questions raised by his affidavit of disclosure of suitability matters.
On 23 June 2017, Douglas J found that the applicant had not been candid in his disclosure.[1]
[1]Re Ayobi [2017] QSC 130, [39]-[42].
On 30 October 2017, on the further consideration of the application for admission by this court, the application was withdrawn and the LPAB applied for costs.
The LBAP made a written submission and pressed orally for an order that the applicant pay the LPAB's costs fixed in an amount that would be a relatively full indemnity for the costs incurred before Douglas J.
The court expressed a provisional view that an order should be made that the applicant pay the LBAP's costs of the proceeding, fixed in the amount of $7,000.
The applicant was unrepresented. The court reserved the question of costs on the basis that each of the applicant and the LPAB might…

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.

Continue reading Re Ayobi

Details

AGLC: Re Ayobi [2018] QCA 1
Case: [2018] QCA 1
Decision Date: 30 January 2018

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Ayobi involved an application by the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board seeking an order that the respondent, who had applied for admission as a legal practitioner, pay costs. The application arose from a situation where the respondent had previously withdrawn their application after a finding that they had not been candid in their disclosure. The central issue before the court was whether an order should be made that the respondent pay the Board's costs, and if so, whether these costs should be fixed at an amount less than an indemnity for costs. The court had to determine the appropriate quantum of costs to be awarded while considering the conduct of the respondent in withdrawing their application.

The court considered the respondent's conduct in light of the withdrawal of their application and the nature of the findings against them. It was noted that the respondent had not been entirely candid in their disclosure, which influenced the Board's decision to reject their application. The court evaluated the proportionality and necessity of the costs incurred by the Board in light of the respondent's conduct. It was held that while the respondent's conduct warranted a costs order, the amount should be fixed at a figure that was less than an indemnity for costs, reflecting the specific circumstances of the case.

In reaching its decision, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that costs orders are proportionate to the conduct of the party against whom they are made. The court fixed the costs payable by the respondent to the Board at $7,000, recognising the need for a balanced approach that neither overly penalises the respondent nor under-compensates the Board for the resources expended. The court’s reasoning was grounded in the principles of fairness and proportionality, ensuring that the costs awarded were commensurate with the respondent's conduct.

The court ordered that the applicant, the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board, be paid by the respondent costs in the amount of $7,000. This order reflects the court's determination that the respondent's conduct warranted an award of costs, while also taking into account the need to avoid excessive financial penalties.

Orders

Orders of the court

The applicant pay the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board’s costs fixed at $7,000.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	Re Ayobi [2018] QCA 1
PARTIES:	LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD (QUEENSLAND) (applicant/respondent) v WAHID AYOBI (respondent/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 917 of 2018 SC No 2537 of 2016
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil
DELIVERED ON:	30 January 2018
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 October 2017
JUDGES:	Holmes CJ and Boddice and Jackson JJ
ORDER:	The applicant pay the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board’s costs fixed at $7,000.
CATCHWORDS:	PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATIONS AND ADMISSION – OTHER MATTERS – where the respondent/applicant had applied for admission as a legal practitioner – where a finding was made that the respondent/applicant had not been candid in his disclosure – where the respondent/applicant’s application had been withdrawn – where the applicant/respondent applied for an order that the respondent/applicant pay its costs – whether an order should be made that the respondent/applicant pay the applicant/respondent’s costs fixed at an amount that is less than an indemnity for costs Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 13(1) Barristers’ Board v Khan[2001] QCA 92, cited Clyne v NSW Bar Association (1960) 104 CLR 186; [1960] HCA 40, cited KMB v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (Queensland)[2017] QCA 146, cited Oshlack v Richmond River Council (1998) 193 CLR 72; [1998] HCA 11, cited Re Ayobi [2017] QSC 130, related Wentworth v NSW Bar Association (1992) 176 CLR 239; [1992] HCA 24, cited
COUNSEL:	K Wilson QC for the applicant/respondent The respondent/applicant appeared on his own behalf
SOLICITORS:	Jensen & Co for the applicant/respondent The respondent/applicant appeared on his own behalf