Re Wong - [2006] VSC 471

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

FULL COURT

No. 9872 of 2006

IN THE MATTER OF FLORENCE HEUNG YUN WONG

---

JUDGES:	WARREN, C.J., CHERNOV, J.A. and CUMMINS, J.
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	29 November 2006
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	29 November 2006
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2006] VSC 471

---

Admission to the legal profession – Articles of clerkship – Principal not an “eligible legal practitioner” for the required period of time – Legal Practice (Admission) Rules 1999 r.3.11- Bona fide error – Re Warren [1976] VR 406, applied.

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
For the Board of Examiners	Mr R. Meldrum, QC
For Ms Wong	Mr N. Mukhtar, QC	Russell Kennedy

WARREN, C.J.,
CHERNOV, J.A.,
CUMMINS, J.:

The Court has before it a notice of originating motion pursuant to which the Board of Examiners moves the Court to consider its report of 21 November 2006 in which it identifies an irregularity in the admission of Florence Heung Yun Wong, who was admitted to the legal profession by this Court on 26 April 2006. The irregularity is constituted by a technical deficiency in the qualifications of the principal under whom Ms Wong served her articles of clerkship contrary to r.3.11 of the Legal Practice Admission Rules 1999 (“the Rules”). Notwithstanding that the principal swore in her affidavit in support of Ms Wong’s application for admission that she was relevantly qualified, she did not manage a trust account for the whole of the two year period prescribed by the Rules and, thus, was not relevantly qualified. Upon becoming aware of this irregularity, the principal immediately notified the Board.

So far as is relevant, the report of the Board states as follows. On 8 March 2005, Ms Wong entered into Articles of Clerkship between herself as clerk and Rosemary Barbara Southgate as principal. Ms Southgate was then, and is now, a partner in the law firm of Russell Kennedy and has been in practice as an “eligible legal practitioner”[1] since 9 July 2004. She deposed in her affidavit of 8 March 2005 that verified the Articles of Clerkship in question that she was competent pursuant to the Rules to have a clerk articled to her. In the circumstances and relying, in part, on the affidavit of Ms Southgate the Board approved the Articles of Clerkship on

9 May 2005.
[1]“Eligible legal practitioner” was relevantly defined by r.1.05 of the Legal Practice (Admission) Rules 1999.

So far as is relevant, r.3.11 prohibits an eligible legal practitioner entering into articles as a principal unless he or she has been in private practice for a continuous period of not less than five years, during at least two years of which the legal practitioner has been in practice as an eligible legal practitioner. In March 2005

Ms Southgate swore a further affidavit in conformity with Schedule 7 of the Rules in which she again incorrectly stated that she was relevantly qualified. That affidavit was sworn in support of Ms Wong’s application to the Board for a certificate…

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 Wong 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: [2006] VSC 471
Decision Date: 29 November 2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Re Wong involves the applicant, seeking admission to the legal profession in Victoria, and the Registrar of the Supreme Court of Victoria, who was responsible for overseeing the admission process. The central dispute was whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement under the Legal Practice (Admission) Rules 1999 to complete articles of clerkship with an "eligible legal practitioner" for the requisite period. Specifically, the issue arose because the principal with whom the applicant completed their articles was not deemed an "eligible legal practitioner" for the entire duration of the clerkship. This matter was brought before the Supreme Court of Victoria for resolution.

The primary legal issue before the court was the interpretation of the term "eligible legal practitioner" within the context of the Legal Practice (Admission) Rules 1999. Additionally, the court had to determine whether the applicant's situation constituted a bona fide error, which could potentially excuse non-compliance with the rules. The case of Re Warren [1976] VR 406 was cited as a precedent, providing guidance on the application of the concept of bona fide error in similar contexts.

In delivering the judgment, the court found that the principal with whom the applicant had completed their articles was not an "eligible legal practitioner" for the entire duration of the clerkship, thus technically failing to meet the requirements. However, the court also acknowledged that this situation appeared to be an honest mistake rather than a deliberate attempt to circumvent the rules. Applying the principles from Re Warren, the court concluded that the applicant's case could be excused as a bona fide error. Consequently, the court granted the applicant's application for admission to the legal profession, emphasising the importance of honesty and good faith in such matters.

As a result of the court's decision, the applicant was admitted to the legal profession in Victoria, despite the initial non-compliance with the articles of clerkship requirement. This ruling highlights the court's willingness to consider mitigating circumstances and bona fide errors in admission cases, reinforcing the importance of good faith in the legal profession.

Orders