Solicitors' Board v Bronwyn Narelle Fursey

[2000] QSC 453

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Solicitors’ Board v Bronwyn Narelle Fursey [2000] QSC 453

PARTIES:

SOLICITORS’ BOARD
(applicant)
v
BRONWYN NARELLE FURSEY
(respondent)

FILE NO:

S8621/2000

DIVISION:

Trial Division

PROCEEDING:

Application

DELIVERED ON:

4 December 2000

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

28 November 2000

JUDGE:

ORDER:

Wilson J

1.   Leave to amend paragraph 1 of the Originating Application by adding “rule 21 and” between the words “interpretation of” and “rule 37”.

2.   Direct that the present application be argued before the Court of Appeal.

3.   Reserve Costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROFESSIONS AND TRADES – LAWYERS – QUALIFICATONS AND ADMISSION – QUEENSLAND – Power of Solicitors’ Board to abridge time spent working as an associate in certain courts – court’s advice sought in interpreting the Rules relating to the Admission of Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Queensland – Direction by a single Judge pursuant to the Supreme Court Act 1995 that the matter be argued before the Court of Appeal.

Supreme Court Act 1995 s251
Rules Relating to the Admission of Solicitors of the Supreme Court  of Queensland, rr 2, 17, 21, 37, 94, 96.

COUNSEL:

W Sofronoff QC for the applicant

RI Hanger QC for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

McCullough Robertson Lawyers for the applicant
Hunt & Hunt for the respondent

1. WILSON J: This is an application by the Solicitors’ Board for advice on a question arising upon the interpretation of the Rules Relating to the Admission of Solicitors of the Supreme Court of Queensland made pursuant to rule 96 of those rules.

1. A person may be admitted as a solicitor upon completion of a recognised academic course and certain practical training: rule 17. The practical training may take the form (inter alia) of two years’ service as an articled clerk or two years’ service as an associate to a Judge of the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of Queensland, the District Court of Queensland or the Federal Court of Australia, or a combination of service as an articled clerk and service as an associate: see rule 17 and the definition of “Judge’s associate” in rule 2. There are provisions allowing the abridgement of the prescribed period of service as an articled clerk in the case of someone who was served as an associate to a Judge of some other court (rule 21) and the abridgement of the prescribed period of service as an Associate in the case of someone who has served as an associate to a Judge of some other Court (rule 37).

1. The respondent was admitted as a solicitor on 13 September 1999. She had completed a recognised academic course. In support of her application for admission she deposed to having served as associate to the Honourable Justice Brian Jordan of the Family Court of Australia at Brisbane from September 1991 until approximately February 1996. After considering (inter alia) a duty statement for the position she held in the Family Court, the applicant issued her with an unqualified certificate of compliance with the Rules. In fact His Honour was a Judicial Registrar rather than an Judge of the Family Court from the time the respondent commenced working for him until 26 July 1994, when he was appointed as a Judge of that Court. There is no challenge to the order admitting the respondent as a solicitor.

1. The applicant seeks advice upon whether its power to abridge time pursuant to rule 37 is limited to an abridgement of 14 days pursuant to rule 94. Rule 37 provides -

“Board may abridge period of service

37.In the case of a person who has served as an articled clerk to a practitioner in law, or as an Associate or Clerk to a Judge of some Court other than the High Court of Australia, the Supreme Court of Queensland, the Federal Court of Australia or the District Courts of Queensland, the Board may, upon application made to it, abridge the period of service as such Judge’s Associate or Judge’s Clerk required by these Rules to such extent as it deems proper.”

Rule 94 provides -

“Court or Board may extend or abridge time

94.(1) The Court or Board may extend or abridge the time allowed for the doing of any act or matter under these Rules: Provided that in a case where the power to abridge the prescribed time for service as an articled clerk, a Judge’s Associate or Judge’s Clerk is exercised by the Board, then the Board shall be empowered to abridge the time by no more than fourteen days.

(2) Where the Court or Board abridges the time prescribed for service as an articled clerk, Judge’s Associate or Judge’s Clerk, the applicant for admission shall be deemed to have completed the full period of service as required by these Rules.”  

This advice is sought to assist the applicant in its consideration of other applications it may receive from persons who have served as associates to Judges of Courts other than the High Court, the Supreme Court, the Federal Court or the District Court.

1. The power to admit a person as a solicitor is vested in the Court of Appeal and not in a single Judge, except at sittings of the Court at Rockhampton, Townsville or Cairns where there has been compliance in all respects with the Rules, the person has the certificate of the present applicant and no objection to the admission of the person has been lodged with the applicant's secretary: rule 67. An application for an extension or abridgement of time under rule 94 or an exemption under rule 95 would be determined by the Court of Appeal, not a single Judge. In these circumstances it would be undesirable for a single Judge to advise the applicant on the extent of its power to grant an abridgement of time under rule 37, especially since there is no provision for review of such advice by the Court of Appeal.

1. In exercise of the power of a single Judge to direct any case or point in a case to be argued before the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 251 of the Supreme Court Act 1995, I intend directing that the present application by argued before the Court of Appeal. Before doing so, I will hear counsel on whether there ought to be any reformulation or amendment of the question upon which advice is sought.