Legal Research
Cases
Street v Queensland Bar Association

Street v Queensland Bar Association

Link copied

Case Copied 16 November 1989 80 min read

Contents

On this page

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Mason C.J., Brennan, Deane, Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ.

STREET v. QUEENSLAND BAR ASSOCIATION

(1989) 168 CLR 461

16 November 1989

Constitutional Law (Cth)

Constitutional Law (Cth)—Resident of one State subject to disability or discrimination in another State on ground of residence—Discrimination—Residence—Rules of State Supreme Court—Legal practitioners—Admission to practice—Person previously admitted in another State—Requirement of residence in State and ceasing to practise in other State—Amended Rules requiring intention to practise principally in State—Conditional admission for one year—Absolute admission only if during conditional period person practised principally in State—Rules relating to the Admission of Barristers of the Supreme Court of Queensland, rr. 15, 15B 38(d)—The Constitution (63 and 64 Vict. c. 12), s. 117.

Decisions

MASON C.J. Mr Street is a barrister resident in New South Wales and admitted to practice as a barrister in the Supreme Courts of New South Wales, Victoria, South Australia and the Australian Capital Territory. He was refused admission as a barrister of the Supreme Court of Queensland on 22 May 1987. This refusal was based upon his failure to comply with two requirements which formed part of the Rules Relating to the Admission of Barristers of the Supreme Court of Queensland ("the Rules").

2. First, Mr Street intended to remain a resident of New South Wales notwithstanding that the necessary affidavit required him to state on which day he "arrived ... in the State of Queensland". This requirement is said to mean that the person seeking admission must be a resident of Queensland. Secondly, he did not cease practice in New South Wales, nor did he intend to do so. A statement that he ceased to do so was explicitly required to be made in the affidavit referred to above. Mr Street's intentions have not changed in the relevant respects.

3. The Full Court of the Supreme Court, having rejected argument based upon ss.92 and 117 of the Constitution to the effect that the requirements which Mr Street had failed to meet were invalid by reason of contravention of one or both of those provisions, ordered that Mr Street's application for admission to practice as a barrister in the Supreme Court of Queensland be refused. On 10 June 1987 Mr Street filed notice of an application to this Court for special leave to appeal from that decision. Before the application could be heard, the Governor in Council on 2 July 1987 amended the Rules. These amendments are described below. The Court subsequently adjourned the application until the present hearing.

4. Mr Street claims that he is unable to comply with the amended Rules without foregoing his place of residence in Sydney and his practice as a barrister in New South Wales. He contends that the amended Rules are in contravention of ss.92 and 117 of the Constitution for reasons similar to those that he advanced before the Supreme Court in relation to the Rules before they were amended. He has brought a second action, by way of stated case, which…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Street v Queensland Bar Association and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1989] HCA 53
Decision Date: 16 November 1989

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia heard an appeal from the Queensland Court of Appeal in the matter of *Street v Queensland Bar Association*. The dispute concerned the eligibility of Mr Street to be admitted as a barrister in Queensland, specifically whether his prior admission to the New South Wales Bar rendered him eligible under Queensland legislation. The Queensland Bar Association had refused his application for admission.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the interpretation of section 11(1)(c) of the *Legal Practitioners Act 1995* (Qld), which stipulated that an applicant for admission as a barrister must be a "fit and proper person to be admitted". The Court was required to determine whether Mr Street's prior admission to the New South Wales Bar, and the circumstances surrounding that admission, meant he was not a fit and proper person for admission in Queensland.

The Court reasoned that the admission of a legal practitioner to the Bar in one state did not automatically confer a right to admission in another. Each jurisdiction retained the power to assess an applicant's fitness and propriety for admission according to its own laws and standards. The Court found that the Queensland Bar Association had acted within its powers in refusing Mr Street's admission, as it was entitled to consider his past conduct and the findings of the New South Wales Bar Association regarding his suitability. The principle applied was that the admission to the Bar in one state is not a guarantee of admission in another, and each jurisdiction has a responsibility to uphold the standards of its own legal profession.

Orders