Saunders v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 2)

In the case of Saunders v Legal Profession Admission Board (No 2), the applicant sought a review of the decisions of the Legal Profession Admission Board, which had refused to admit her as a legal practitioner. The Board's decisions were based on her past criminal convictions, deemed incompatible with the ethical standards expected of legal practitioners in Australia. The matter was heard in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the discretionary power to award costs, as per the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977, should be exercised in favour of the applicant. Additionally, the court needed to consider the role of the Law Society as an amicus curiae in the proceedings and its impact on the exercise of this discretion. The applicant argued that the Board's decisions were unreasonable and that she should be awarded costs as a result. The Board, on the other hand, contended that the costs should not be awarded given the circumstances of the case.

The court held that while the Board's decisions were indeed unreasonable, the applicant's conduct throughout the proceedings did not warrant an award of costs. The court emphasised that the primary focus in such cases should be on the merits of the application rather than on punitive measures against the party that lost the case. Furthermore, the court acknowledged the Law Society's role as amicus curiae, noting its contribution to the proceedings, which also influenced the decision not to award costs. Ultimately, the court decided against awarding costs to the applicant, finding that the exercise of discretion should not be in her favour under the given circumstances.

The final orders of the court were that the Board's decisions be quashed, and the matter be remitted back to the Board for reconsideration in light of the court's findings. No costs were awarded to either party.