Re Dickinson Summary | CaseChat AU

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

[1993] QCA 174

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Mot. No. 8 of 1989

Brisbane

[Re: Dickinson]

IN THE MATTER OF "The Solicitors' Admission
Rules 1968 - 1987"
IN THE MATTER OF an Application for admission as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland by ANDREA LOUISE DICKINSON
The President
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Dowsett

Judgment delivered 18/05/93

Judgment of the Court

APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION AS A SOLICITOR GRANTED

CATCHWORDS:	LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - Admission - QUT student commenced articles when she had to pass in more than two subjects - whether special circumstances - Solicitors' Admission Rules, 1968, rr.17(1)(c), 95.
Counsel:	R.R. Douglas Q.C. for the applicant
Solicitors:	The Solicitors' Board entered an appearance
Hearing Date(s):	27/04/93

THE COURT OF APPEAL

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Mot. No.8 of 1989

Brisbane

Before

The President
Mr Justice McPherson
Mr Justice Dowsett

[Re:Dickinson]

IN THE MATTER OF "The Solicitors' Admission
Rules 1968 - 1987"
IN THE MATTER OF an Application for admission as a Solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland by ANDREA LOUISE DICKINSON

JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 18/05/93

Andrea Louise Dickinson has applied for admission as a Solicitor. She completed an approved Degree in Law at the Queensland University of Technology in December 1992 and completed service under articles of clerkship for a period of two years in April 1993. The Solicitors' Board has certified that she is a fit and proper person and has complied with the material rules "except that she commenced articles at a time when she had to pass in more than two subjects" in order to complete her Degree in Law at the Queensland University of Technology. The Board does not oppose the applicant's admission. If she had obtained her Degree in Law at the University of Queensland instead of the Queensland University of Technology, she would now be eligible for admission.

The applicant commenced employment with a firm of solicitors in Townsville on 8 January 1990 and, on 3 April 1991, entered into articles of clerkship with a member of that firm. At that time, she had seven subjects remaining in order to complete her Degree in Law. She understood from the Solicitors' Board that it was intended to change Rule 17(1)(c) of the Solicitors' Admission Rules 1968 to allow articles of clerkship to be entered into by Queensland University of Technology students pursuing a course for an approved Degree in Law irrespective of the number of subjects to be completed provided that the requisite period of practical training was commenced and completed to the satisfaction of the Board within the period of three years immediately preceding the date of application for admission. The Solicitors' Board consented to the applicant entering into articles in accordance with the decision in Re Stobie (1990) 2 Qd.R. 456.

The applicant's family lives in Townsville and the applicant's father is a partner in the firm at which she served under articles. The firm would probably grant her further articles of clerkship if that were necessary but, if not, the applicant might confront difficulties in finding articles in Townsville because of a restraint of trade clause which she has signed. Further, the firm intends to employ her as a solicitor once she is admitted, but will not increase her salary until then.

A similar problem was considered by the Court in Re Wood, in which judgment is being delivered today.

For the reasons there given, the Court considers that this applicant also has shown sufficient special circumstances and should be admitted.

A student at the Queensland University of Technology (QUT) applied for admission as a legal practitioner. The applicant had commenced her articles of clerkship but had not passed more than two subjects, as required by the Solicitors' Admission Rules, 1968. The Registrar of the Supreme Court of Queensland was required to decide if there were special circumstances justifying an exception to the rule. The applicant argued that special circumstances existed due to a serious illness during her studies, which affected her academic performance. The Registrar concluded that there were no special circumstances and refused the application.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant could be admitted as a legal practitioner despite not having passed more than two subjects, as required by the Solicitors' Admission Rules, 1968. The court was required to determine if the applicant's circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant an exception to the rule.

The Registrar found that the applicant's illness did not constitute special circumstances as it did not prevent her from completing her studies within the required timeframe. The Registrar noted that the applicant had a reasonable opportunity to pass the necessary subjects and that her illness did not significantly impact her academic performance. The Registrar concluded that the applicant's failure to pass more than two subjects was not due to any exceptional circumstances and refused the application for admission.

The Registrar refused the application for admission as a legal practitioner. The Registrar found that the applicant's illness did not constitute special circumstances, and her failure to pass more than two subjects was not due to any exceptional circumstances.

Re Dickinson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established