Smyth v Bar Association of Queensland

[2025] QCA 119

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Smyth v Bar Association of Queensland [2025] QCA 119

PARTIES:

PETER SMYTH (A PSEUDONYM)
(applicant)
v
BAR ASSOCIATION OF QUEENSLAND
(respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 15682 of 2024
QCAT No 180 of 2024

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

General Civil Appeal – Further Order

ORIGINATING COURT:

Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal at Brisbane – [2024] QCAT 487; [2024] QCAT 488 (Judicial Member Lyons KC)

DELIVERED ON:

1 July 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

Heard on the papers

JUDGES:

Bond, Boddice and Bradley JJA

FURTHER ORDER:

Order 1 made in this proceeding by Mullins P on 27 November 2024 be vacated.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS – JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – AMENDING, VARYING AND SETTING ASIDE JUDGMENTS AND ORDERS – ACTIONS TO REVIEW OR SET ASIDE JUDGMENT OR ORDER – GENERALLY – where the applicant had sought review of a decision of the Bar Association of Queensland to refuse to renew his practising certificate before the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal – where the applicant also made an application for a non-publication order before the Tribunal – where the
non-publication order was refused by the Tribunal – where in order that the right to seek leave to appeal from the decision not to grant a non-publication order not be rendered nugatory the Court of Appeal made an interim non-publication order – where the Court of Appeal made final orders allowing the appeal against the Tribunal’s refusal to grant a non-publication order – where the Court of Appeal made final orders that would permit publication of the decisions but only in a way that provided for the anonymisation of the applicant – whether the interim non-publication order ought to be vacated

Smyth v Bar Association of Queensland [2025] QCA 80, cited

COUNSEL:

A J H Morris KC for the applicant (pro bono)
P J McCafferty KC, with H E P Clift, for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

No appearance for the applicant
Bartley Cohen for the respondent

1. THE COURT:  The applicant had sought this Court’s leave to appeal two related decisions by the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT) dated 13 November 2024.

2. The first QCAT decision had dismissed the applicant’s application to review the respondent’s refusal to renew his practising certificate as a barrister.  The second QCAT decision had refused the applicant’s application for non-publication orders in relation to various documents connected with the first decision.

3. In order that the right to seek leave to appeal from the second QCAT decision not be rendered nugatory, on 27 November 2024 Mullins P made orders in the following terms:

   “1. Direct the Registrar request the Supreme Court Library not to publish the reasons of QCAT that are the subject of the appeal until further order.

   2. Permit the applicant to continue to use the pseudonym Peter Smyth in respect of the appeal until further order.”

4. On 23 May 2025, this Court made orders disposing of the application for leave to appeal: see Smyth v Bar Association of Queensland [2025] QCA 80. Amongst other things this Court made orders which would permit publication of the two QCAT decisions but only in a way which provided for the anonymisation of the applicant and various corporate and natural persons connected with him in a particular and specified way.

5. The only issue which remains is what should happen to the orders made by Mullins P on 27 November 2024.  Provision was made for the resolution of that issue by order 7 made on 23 May 2025:

   “As to the question whether orders 1 and 2 of the orders made in this proceeding by Mullins P on 27 November 2024 ought to be set aside or amended:

   (a)the applicant and the respondent must file and serve written submission on that question as soon as is practicable;

   (b)the question will be dealt with on the papers on a date to be fixed not earlier than 14 days after the applicant and the respondent respectively notify in writing the applicant’s wife of their proposal in relation to those orders and provide her with copies of those submissions;

   (c)to facilitate fixing the date mentioned in (b), the parties are required to notify the Court the date on which they have given the applicant’s wife the requisite notice.”

6. Submissions were received from both the applicant and the respondent.  The parties were ad idem that Order 1 made by Mullins P should be vacated and Order 2 should remain.

7. We agree.

8. The orders made in this Court on 23 May 2025 contemplated that the substance of the way in which QCAT and this Court disposed of the matters before them should be available to the public and that position should be modified only by a particular anonymisation regime.  Order 1 made by Mullins P, whilst suitable for the purposes it was made, became unsuitable once this Court had dealt with the matters before it in the way which it did.  Accordingly, it should be vacated.  On the other hand, Order 2 is entirely consistent with the anonymisation regime put in place by the orders made by this Court and may stay in place.

9. For completeness, we note that the applicant’s submissions made pursuant to Order 7 also suggested that the applicant would not oppose what might be thought to be a minor improvement to the anonymisation regime put in place by the orders of 23 May 2025.  That suggestion was made in response to complaints made by the applicant’s wife, who had unsuccessfully applied to be joined in the appeal as an intervenor.  We do not regard it to be appropriate to revise the orders previously made by us on such a basis.

10. We order that Order 1 made in this proceeding by Mullins P on 27 November 2024 be vacated.