THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v JAI RAM [1989] NSWCA 170

THE PROTHONOTARY OF THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES v JAI RAM [1989] NSWCA 170

Mr Ram was guilty of cheating in a legal examination and of subsequent lack of candour; these acts demonstrated a failure of moral judgment and unfitness to be a member of the legal profession necessitating that his admission as a student at law be cancelled and a bar imposed on reapplication for a fixed period for the protection of the public.

Parties
Claimant: The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Opponent/respondent: Jai Ram
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 1989
Procedural Posture
Professional Discipline Proceeding / Appeal
Outcome
The admission of the opponent as a student at law is cancelled. The opponent shall not apply for re-admission as a student-at-law until three years after the judgment. Any such application must be referred to the Court of Appeal. The opponent is to pay the claimant's costs.
Legal Topics
Cheating in Exams, Admission to Legal Profession, Student at Law Misconduct
Legal Practitioners Professional Discipline Cheating in Exams Admission to Legal Profession Student at Law Misconduct

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

The Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Claimant

Jai Ram

Opponent/respondent

Procedural Posture

Professional Discipline Proceeding / Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent (student at law) was guilty of cheating and associated misconduct in an examination
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's admission as a student at law should be cancelled
  3. 3 Whether and for how long the respondent should be prevented from reapplying for admission

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Ram was guilty of cheating in a legal examination and of subsequent lack of candour; these acts demonstrated a failure of moral judgment and unfitness to be a member of the legal profession necessitating that his admission as a student at law be cancelled and a bar imposed on reapplication for a fixed period for the protection of the public.

Court Disposition

The admission of the opponent as a student at law is cancelled. The opponent shall not apply for re-admission as a student-at-law until three years after the judgment. Any such application must be referred to the Court of Appeal. The opponent is to pay the claimant's costs.

Orders

  • The admission of the opponent as a student at law is cancelled.
  • The opponent shall not apply to either of the Admission Boards for re-admission as a student-at-law until the expiration of three years from the date of this judgment.