Wentworth v New South Wales Bar Association

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on appeal from a decision of the New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appellant, Wentworth, was represented by Mr J.J.J. Garnsey, QC, and Ms J.V. Coombs. The respondent, the New South Wales Bar Association, was represented by Mr R.S. Hulme, QC, and Mr P.R. Garling. The Solicitor-General for New South Wales, Mr K. Mason, QC, sought leave to intervene on behalf of the Attorney-General for New South Wales, or alternatively to appear as *amicus curiae*.

The primary legal issues before the High Court concerned the administration of justice, specifically the role of the Supreme Court in admitting barristers, the standing of the Bar Association and other parties to present evidence and argument on fitness for admission, and the Supreme Court's power to permit intervention in matters of public interest. A related contention raised by the appellant was that the Attorney-General was the only proper party to oppose a barrister's admission.

The Court considered the application for leave to intervene by the Attorney-General. The appellant objected to the intervention, arguing that no grounds were shown for such intervention, referencing the New South Wales Court of Appeal's decision in *Corporate Affairs Commission v Bradley*, which identified only two bases for Attorney-General intervention: safeguarding Crown prerogatives and matters concerning foreign relations. The New South Wales Bar Association supported the application for intervention.