Stanoevski v Law Society of New South Wales

The matter before the Court of Appeal was an appeal by the applicant, Stanoevski, against the refusal by the respondent, Law Society of New South Wales, to grant him a practising certificate. The applicant sought leave to extend the appeal to the merits, arguing that the refusal was based on inadequate reasons and that his professional misconduct did not justify the refusal. The Court of Appeal was tasked with determining whether the applicant should be granted leave to extend the appeal to the merits, and if so, what orders should be made.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant was entitled to have the appeal extended to the merits, given that the primary decision-maker had provided reasons for the refusal of the practising certificate. The Court had to consider whether the reasons provided were adequate and whether the applicant's professional misconduct warranted the refusal of the practising certificate. The Court also had to determine whether the applicant's appeal was an abuse of process and whether the appeal should be dismissed outright.

In determining the matter, the Court of Appeal held that the primary decision-maker had provided reasons for the refusal of the practising certificate, but those reasons were inadequate. The Court found that the applicant's professional misconduct did not justify the refusal of the practising certificate and that the appeal was not an abuse of process. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to have the appeal extended to the merits, and that the appeal should be adjourned to allow for the hearing of further evidence and submissions on the merits. The Court also held that the applicant should be granted leave to appeal to the merits, and that the appeal should be heard before a different panel of the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal adjourned the appeal to a date to be fixed by the registrar for the hearing of such further evidence and the making of such further submissions on the merits as the parties may be advised. The Court ordered that the appeal be heard before a different panel of the Court of Appeal, and that the applicant be granted leave to appeal to the merits. The Court also ordered that the respondent bear the costs of the appeal.