Wang v Sheehy - [2024] TASSC 67

[2024] TASSC 67

COURT:	SUPREME COURT OF TASMANIA
CITATION:	Wang v Sheehy [2024] TASSC 67
PARTIES:	WANG, Xiaoli
v
SHEEHY, Mitchell Ryan
FILE NO:	2255/2023
DELIVERED ON:	19 November 2024
DELIVERED AT:	Hobart
HEARING DATE:	26 March 2024
JUDGMENT OF:	Brett J
CATCHWORDS:

Professions and trades – Lawyers – Complaints and discipline – Disciplinary proceedings – Tasmania – Whether legislation provides a right of appeal from a determination of the Tribunal under s 458 – Provision only authorises an appeal in respect of orders made by the Tribunal "under this Part" – Right of appeal in s 484 contained in different "Part" to s 458 - No provision for appeal to Supreme Court from decision of Tribunal under s 458.

Aust Dig Professions and Trades [1274]

Citations:
Boland v Boxall [2016] TASSC 30
Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22, 214 CLR 118

Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v Disciplinary Tribunal [2022] TASSC 65

Legislation:
Legal Profession Act 2007, s 451, s 456, s 458(1)(a), 458(2), s 458(3), s 458(5), s 464, s 467(5)(b), s 470, s 484,
s 486

Supreme Court Civil Procedure Act 1932, s 39

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:

Appellant: In person
Respondent: In person

Judgment Number:	[2024] TASSC 67
Number of paragraphs:	15

Serial No 67/2024 File No 2255/2023

XIAOLI WANG v MITCHELL RYAN SHEEHY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

BRETT J
19 November 2024

1 On 18 January 2022, the appellant made a complaint to the Legal Profession Board (the Board) concerning the respondent's representation of her during family law property settlement proceedings. The Board conducted an investigation of the complaint in accordance with the provisions of Part 4.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (the Act). On 16 March 2023, after completion of the investigation, the Board, in accordance with its powers pursuant to s 451 of the Act, dismissed the complaint on the basis that it was satisfied that there was no reasonable likelihood that the respondent would be found guilty of either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct. The appellant then made an application to the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal (the Tribunal), pursuant to s 458(1)(a) to have the matter to which the Board's determination relates determined by the Tribunal. On 7 August 2023, after a hearing, the Tribunal arrived at the same decision as the Board, that is, that there was no reasonable likelihood that the respondent would be found guilty of either unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct, and it dismissed the application.
2 The appellant now seeks to appeal the Tribunal's decision. However, a preliminary question arises as to whether the legislation provides a right of appeal from a determination of the Tribunal under s 458. The appellant asserts that her right to appeal is contained in s 484 of the Act. It should be acknowledged at this point that there is no other statutory provision for an appeal against an order of the Tribunal, so this Court's jurisdiction to entertain this appeal will depend…

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 Wang v Sheehy 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: [2024] TASSC 67
Decision Date: 19 November 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wang v Sheehy involved the appellant, Wang, who sought to challenge the decision of the Disciplinary Tribunal of the Supreme Court of Tasmania. The Tribunal had found Wang guilty of professional misconduct in relation to his practice as a lawyer. The legal issues before the court were centred on the interpretation of the statutory provisions that govern the appeal process from decisions made by the Tribunal. Specifically, the court had to determine whether there was a right of appeal from a determination of the Tribunal under section 458 of the Legal Profession Act 2003 (Tas). The appellant argued that the legislation provided such a right, whereas the respondent contended that the statutory language did not support an appeal from a decision under section 458.

The court considered the statutory language and structure of the Legal Profession Act 2003 (Tas), focusing on the provisions concerning appeals from the decisions of the Tribunal. The court noted that section 458 of the Act pertains to the findings of the Tribunal, while section 484 provides for appeals in respect of orders made by the Tribunal "under this Part". However, section 458 was not located in the same "Part" as section 484, which suggested that the appeal provision in section 484 did not extend to decisions made under section 458. The court found that there was no express provision for an appeal to the Supreme Court from a decision of the Tribunal under section 458. Therefore, the court concluded that the legislation did not provide a right of appeal from such a determination.

In light of the statutory interpretation, the court held that there was no right of appeal from a decision of the Tribunal under section 458 of the Legal Profession Act 2003 (Tas). Consequently, the appeal by Wang against the Tribunal's decision was dismissed. The court's decision confirmed that the appellant had no recourse to appeal the findings of the Tribunal in relation to his professional misconduct as a lawyer, under the specific statutory provisions in question.

Orders