Re Wood

[1993] QCA 175

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL

[1993] QCA 175

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

Mot. No. 8 of 1989

Brisbane

[Re: Wood]

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 MICHAEL DENNIS WOOD

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 he had to pass in more than two subjects - whether special circumstances - Solicitors' Admission Rules, 1968, rr.17(1)(c), 95.
Counsel:	J.B. Varley 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:Woods]

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 MICHAEL DENNIS WOOD

JUDGMENT - THE COURT

Judgment delivered 18/05/93

Michael Dennis Wood has applied for admission as a solicitor. He 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 he is a fit and proper person and has complied with the material Rules "except that he commenced articles at a time when he had to pass in more than two subjects" in order to complete his Degree in Law at the Queensland University of Technology. The Board does not oppose the applicant's admission. If he had obtained his Degree in Law at the University of Queensland instead of the Queensland University of Technology, he would now be eligible for admission.

So far as presently relevant, Rule 17(1)(c) of the

Solicitors' Admission Rules, 1968 provides:

"17(1)	A candidate may qualify for admission by:-
...

(c) In the case of a person who has completed or is pursuing a course for an approved Degree in Law at the University of Queensland, having commenced and completed to the satisfaction of the Board within the period of three years immediately preceding the date of his application for admission, or, in the case of a person who has completed or is pursuing a course for an approved Degree in Law at the Queensland Institute of Technology, having commenced at a time when he has to pass in not more than two subjects in order to complete such course and having completed to the satisfaction of the Board a period of practical training being any one of the following:-

(i) Service for a period of two years subject to the conditions prescribed under articles of clerkship;

... ."
Rule 95 provides:-
"95. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in these
Rules contained, the Court, if in special circumstances
it thinks fit so to do, may exempt any person from
compliance with any of these Rules, either wholly or
partly or subject to such conditions as the Court
thinks proper."

It is therefore necessary for the applicant to demonstrate that special circumstances exist.

From June 1989 to September 1990, the applicant was employed by a firm of solicitors in Brisbane.

In about August 1990, the applicant was informed by the Solicitors' Board that it was intended to change Rule 17(1)(c) "to make it the same as the Rules relating to entering into Articles of Clerkship as those of Queensland University students ... "; that is to say, 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.

In September 1990, the applicant commenced employment with a firm of solicitors in Dalby and, on 3 April 1991, he entered into articles of clerkship with a member of that firm. At the time when he entered into articles, the applicant had seven subjects remaining in order to complete his Degree in Law. 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 has resided in Dalby since September 1990 and owns a house there, which he purchased with a bank loan in June 1991. He is to be married in September this year and wishes to remain in Dalby, where he has become actively involved in the local community and district activities.
However, his articles of clerkship contain a restraint of trade clause and he is unlikely to find employment except with the firm where he was articled.
That firm intends to employ the applicant as a solicitor if he is admitted, but may not be able to grant him further articles of clerkship if it is necessary for him to recommence articles. Dalby is a drought declared area and the local economy is adversely affected by current circumstances.
There are a number of factors over and above the information provided and the attitude adopted by the Solicitors' Board which favour the applicants' admission. However, in my opinion, the Board's approach and the absence of any continuing logical distinction between graduates of the University of Queensland and the Queensland University of Technology are sufficient to justify admission although that has not previously been accepted: see Re Taylor (CA No.265 of 1992; 27 April 1992) and Re Johnson (CA No.393 of 1992; 17 August 1992). It is important to stress this because the Court was told that there are other persons who have proceeded on the basis of the Boards's information and attitude.

While there is force in the view that these persons should not be allowed to gain an advantage over other Queensland University of Technology graduates who have waited until they have not more than two subjects to complete before entering into articles, the approach adopted by the Board removes any suggestion of the deliberate flouting of the Rules. Further, it is not in the public interest or the interest of others seeking articles, which are not easy to obtain, to add to the competition for articles by requiring those who have already completed the requisite period of practical training to repeat that process.

In my opinion, the applicant has shown sufficient special circumstances and should be admitted.