Ragg v Legal Complaints Review Officer

This case was an application for judicial review of a decision of the Legal Complaints Review Officer (Review Officer) under the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016. Hugh Peter Petrie Ragg, a practising lawyer, sought a judicial review of the Review Officer’s Decision and in particular sought, among other things, a declaration that the Decision was invalid, an order setting aside the Decision and the finding of unsatisfactory conduct for breach of r 10.1 Client Care Rules and an order setting aside the order confirming the Standards Committee’s $500 costs order. The Review Officer abided by this Court’s decision. The Law Society was joined as an intervenor. Judicial review is the supervisory function of the Court which ensures public power is exercised according to the law. It is primarily concerned with examining procedural compliance, not the substance of the decision itself, when assessing whether a decision should be allowed to stand. Unreasonableness is one of the most problematic grounds of Judicial review. The appropriate test of unreasonableness was explained by Palmer J in Hu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal: where a decision is so insupportable or untenable that proper application of the law requires a different answer, it is unlawful because it is unreasonable. The Review Officer concluded it was open to the Committee to make the two adverse findings as it did. However, the Review Officer considered Mr Ragg’s conduct was best corralled under one heading represented by a single determination of unsatisfactory conduct made pursuant to s 12(b) of the Act. The Review Officer modified the Committee’s decision accordingly. The Review Officer reversed the orders as to apologies and fines. She confirmed the costs order of $500. The Review Officer reserved her review of the Committee’s notification to be made to the Registrar-General, and reserved whether she ought independently to notify the Registrar-General of her decision. Mr Ragg filed with the Review Officer a copy of his application to Court for judicial review, and submitted that there should be no notification to the Registrar- General before this judicial review application was determined. By a second decision, the Review Officer confirmed the Committee’s resolution to notify. Mr Ragg has established neither that the Decision of the Review Officer proceeded on an error of law nor that the Decision was so insupportable or untenable that the proper application of law requires a different answer. The application for judicial review is dismissed, with no order as to costs or disbursements.