Re Ayobi

In the matter of Re Ayobi, the applicant is seeking admission as a legal practitioner, opposed by the Legal Practitioners Admission Board on the grounds that he has not been candid in his disclosures. The case was heard and determined by the Supreme Court of Victoria, with Justice Beach presiding. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had met his duty of candour to the court in his application for admission, and if he was a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession.

The applicant had disclosed two instances of academic misconduct and some traffic fines, along with two protection orders made against him in relation to domestic violence incidents with his wife in 2004 and 2014. The court examined the applicant's accounts of these incidents and found inconsistencies between his account and those of the complainant and police, particularly in relation to the 2004 incident where police recorded severe swelling and a black eye on the wife, which she later denied. Additionally, the applicant did not disclose the nature of the contested Queensland proceedings when he applied for admission in Victoria. The court held that the applicant had not met his duty of candour to the court, and therefore was not a fit and proper person to be admitted as a legal practitioner.

The court's reasoning was based on the inconsistencies in the applicant's account of the domestic violence incidents and his failure to provide a complete and truthful account of the contested Queensland proceedings. The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated the level of candour required of a legal practitioner, and that his conduct was not consistent with the standards expected of the legal profession. The application for admission was subsequently adjourned for further hearing by the Court of Appeal.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant's application for admission as a legal practitioner be adjourned to a date to be fixed for further hearing before the Court of Appeal.