Re Wendy Anne Wright - [2011] QSC 34

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Re Wendy Anne Wright [2011] QSC 34

PARTIES:

WENDY ANNE WRIGHT
(applicant)
v
LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD
(first respondent)
and
QUEENSLAND LAW SOCIETY INC. and
THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION
(second respondent)

FILE NO/S:

B1567/07

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application for Leave to Proceed

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court, Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

7 March 2011

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATES:

10 September 2010

JUDGE:

Margaret Wilson J

ORDER:

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the applicant be given leave to proceed pursuant to rule 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in respect of her application filed 22 February 2007; and

2.          the applicant pay the Queensland Law Society ("the QLS") and Legal Services Commission ("the LSC")’s costs of and incidental to the application filed 14 April 2010, including any reserved costs, to be assessed on the standard basis.

THE COURT DIRECTS BY CONSENT THAT:

1.          the solicitors for the QLS and LSC notify the solicitors for the applicant in writing within 21 days whether they intend to file and serve the further draft affidavits referred to in correspondence, and in the event they do so wish, they file and serve further affidavits by 4 pm on 28 March 2011;

2.       the applicant file and serve any remaining affidavits by 4 pm on 29 April 2011;

3.       the QLS and LSC file and serve affidavits (if any) in response to the applicant’s affidavits by 4 pm on 27 May 2011;

4.       the parties agree a written statement of issues in dispute by 4 pm on 10 June 2011 and failing agreement each party file and serve a written statement of issues; and

5.       the parties have liberty to apply on 3 clear days written notice.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM PROCEDURE RULES – where applicant a former solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland – where applicant found guilty of six counts of professional misconduct by the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal – where applicant struck off roll of solicitors in 1999 – where applicant unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal and application for special leave to appeal to the High Court dismissed – where applicant sought readmission as a legal practitioner – where delay of more than two years since step taken in proceeding – application for leave to proceed pursuant to r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether Court should grant leave to proceed

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – DUTIES
AND LIABILITIES – DUTIES TO COURT – misconduct, unfitness and discipline – where applicant remorseful in relation to some but not all counts of professional misconduct – whether applicant’s application for readmission has prospects of success

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 5, 389(2)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) ss 30, 32
Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 31

Council of the Queensland Law Society v Wright [2001] QCA 58, cited
Dempsey v Dorber [1990] 1 Qd R. 418, 420, cited
Monaveen Pty…

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 Re Wendy Anne Wright 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: [2011] QSC 34
Decision Date: 7 March 2011

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Wendy Anne Wright, a former solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland, sought readmission as a legal practitioner. She was previously struck off the roll of solicitors in 1999 after being found guilty of six counts of professional misconduct by the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal. Wright’s unsuccessful appeal to the Court of Appeal and her application for special leave to appeal to the High Court were both dismissed. Her application for readmission was made more than two years after the last step in the previous proceeding, requiring her to seek leave to proceed under rule 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).

The legal issues before the court were whether Wright’s delay in seeking readmission justified granting leave to proceed and whether her application for readmission had prospects of success. The court needed to assess Wright’s remorse and her fitness to practice law, considering her previous misconduct and the delay in her application. The court had to balance these factors against the principles of finality and the need for a fair process in considering her readmission.

The court granted leave to proceed, noting that while there was a significant delay in Wright’s application, she had shown remorse for some of her past conduct and had taken steps to rehabilitate herself. The court found that there were prospects of success in her application for readmission. However, it ordered Wright to pay the costs of the application to the Queensland Law Society and the Legal Services Commission. The court also set a timetable for the further affidavits, statements of issues, and responses, allowing both sides to prepare for the next stages of the application.

Orders

Orders of the court

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. the applicant be given leave to proceed pursuant to rule 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in respect of her application filed 22 February 2007; and

2. the applicant pay the Queensland Law Society ("the QLS") and Legal Services Commission ("the LSC")’s costs of and incidental to the application filed 14 April 2010, including any reserved costs, to be assessed on the standard basis.

THE COURT DIRECTS BY CONSENT THAT:

1. the solicitors for the QLS and LSC notify the solicitors for the applicant in writing within 21 days whether they intend to file and serve the further draft affidavits referred to in correspondence, and in the event they do so wish, they file and serve further affidavits by 4 pm on 28

March 2011;

2. the applicant file and serve any remaining affidavits by 4 pm on 29 April 2011;

3. the QLS and LSC file and serve affidavits (if any) in response to the applicant’s affidavits by 4 pm on 27 May 2011;

4. the parties agree a written statement of issues in dispute by 4 pm on 10 June 2011 and failing agreement each party file and serve a written statement of issues; and

5. the parties have liberty to apply on 3 clear days written notice.

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 Wendy Anne Wright [2011] QSC 34
PARTIES:	WENDY ANNE WRIGHT (applicant) v LEGAL PRACTITIONERS ADMISSIONS BOARD (first respondent) and QUEENSLAND LAW SOCIETY INC. and THE LEGAL SERVICES COMMISSION (second respondent)
FILE NO/S:	B1567/07
DIVISION:	Trial Division
PROCEEDING:	Application for Leave to Proceed
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court, Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	7 March 2011
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATES:	10 September 2010
JUDGE:	Margaret Wilson J
ORDER:	THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. the applicant be given leave to proceed pursuant to rule 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules in respect of her application filed 22 February 2007; and 2. the applicant pay the Queensland Law Society ("the QLS") and Legal Services Commission ("the LSC")’s costs of and incidental to the application filed 14 April 2010, including any reserved costs, to be assessed on the standard basis. THE COURT DIRECTS BY CONSENT THAT: 1. the solicitors for the QLS and LSC notify the solicitors for the applicant in writing within 21 days whether they intend to file and serve the further draft affidavits referred to in correspondence, and in the event they do so wish, they file and serve further affidavits by 4 pm on 28 March 2011; 2. the applicant file and serve any remaining affidavits by 4 pm on 29 April 2011; 3. the QLS and LSC file and serve affidavits (if any) in response to the applicant’s affidavits by 4 pm on 27 May 2011; 4. the parties agree a written statement of issues in dispute by 4 pm on 10 June 2011 and failing agreement each party file and serve a written statement of issues; and 5. the parties have liberty to apply on 3 clear days written notice.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – SUPREME COURT PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – PROCEDURE UNDER UNIFORM PROCEDURE RULES – where applicant a former solicitor of the Supreme Court of Queensland – where applicant found guilty of six counts of professional misconduct by the Solicitors Complaints Tribunal – where applicant struck off roll of solicitors in 1999 – where applicant unsuccessfully appealed to Court of Appeal and application for special leave to appeal to the High Court dismissed – where applicant sought readmission as a legal practitioner – where delay of more than two years since step taken in proceeding – application for leave to proceed pursuant to r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) – whether Court should grant leave to proceed PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – DUTIES AND LIABILITIES – DUTIES TO COURT – misconduct, unfitness and discipline – where applicant remorseful in relation to some but not all counts of professional misconduct – whether applicant’s application for readmission has prospects of success Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) rr 5, 389(2) Legal Profession Act 2004 (Qld) ss 30, 32 Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 31 Council of the Queensland Law Society v Wright [2001] QCA 58, cited Dempsey v Dorber [1990] 1 Qd R. 418, 420, cited Monaveen Pty…