Warren v Queensland Law Society Incorporated

In the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal (QCAT), Vasta J considered a dispute between the applicant, Ms Warren, and the Queensland Law Society Incorporated. Ms Warren sought to challenge the validity of a QCAT decision that had been filed in a court of competent jurisdiction for enforcement. The core of her challenge related to the process of enforcing the QCAT monetary decision.

The legal issues before the court were whether the QCAT decision had been improperly filed due to an affidavit based on hearsay, whether there had been compliance with section 699 of the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Qld), and whether the Queensland Law Society had breached its own internal rules regarding expenditure limits, thereby invalidating the QCAT order. Ms Warren also raised a new argument concerning the authority of those who issued notices regarding the cancellation of her practising certificate.

Vasta J dismissed Ms Warren's arguments, finding them to be without substance. The court held that the affidavit required under section 131(2)(b) of the *Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009* (Qld) serves to evidence non-payment, and its validity was not undermined by the applicant's hearsay claim, particularly as non-payment was not disputed. The court found no basis for the submission that the QCAT order was improperly filed. Similarly, the court found no merit in the argument regarding compliance with section 699 of the *Legal Profession Act 2007* (Qld). Regarding the Law Society's expenditure, Vasta J determined that the assessed costs of $59,025.34 represented the decision of the appointed cost assessor, and the Law Society was not required to justify this expenditure to Ms Warren, as doing so would undermine a prior court order. Finally, the court declined to consider the applicant's attempt to challenge the Law Society's decision to cancel her practising certificate, viewing it as an impermissible attempt to relitigate issues already determined by QCAT.