Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hendrick Jan van Es [2014] NSWCA 169

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Hendrick Jan van Es [2014] NSWCA 169

The uncontested evidence established a deliberate attempt by Mr van Es to cheat in the Bar Association's Ethics examination, a deliberate attempt to deceive a senior officer of the Bar Association after exclusion from the examination, a lack of candour in explaining what occurred to the Executive Director of the Bar Association, and an ongoing failure, including in evidence before the Court, to appreciate obligations of candour. Those matters showed that, as at the hearing date, he was not a person of good fame and character and was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers, warranting removal from the Roll.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application by Summons for Declarations That a Lawyer Is Not of Good Fame and Character, Is Not a Fit and Proper Person to Remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers, and for Removal From the Roll / Court of Appeal Principal Judgment on Consent Orders After Adjourned Hearing
Outcome
Declarations made and respondent removed from the Local Roll of Lawyers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Legal Topics
['removal From Local Roll of Lawyers' 'good Fame and Character' 'fit and Proper Person' 'dishonesty in Bar Examination' 'obligation of Candour' 'consent Orders in Disciplinary Proceedings']
['legal Practitioners' 'professional Discipline'] ['removal From Local Roll of Lawyers' 'good Fame and Character' 'fit and Proper Person' 'dishonesty in Bar Examination' 'obligation of Candour' 'consent Orders in Disciplinary Proceedings']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application by Summons for Declarations That a Lawyer Is Not of Good Fame and Character, Is Not a Fit and Proper Person to Remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers, and for Removal From the Roll / Court of Appeal Principal Judgment on Consent Orders After Adjourned Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Mr Hendrick Jan van Es was a person of good fame and character.' 'Whether Mr Hendrick Jan van Es was a fit and proper person to remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' "Whether the Court should make removal orders notwithstanding the respondent's consent." "Whether the respondent's attempted cheating, false explanations to Bar Association officers, and evidence to the Court showed present unfitness to practise."]

Ratio Decidendi

The uncontested evidence established a deliberate attempt by Mr van Es to cheat in the Bar Association's Ethics examination, a deliberate attempt to deceive a senior officer of the Bar Association after exclusion from the examination, a lack of candour in explaining what occurred to the Executive Director of the Bar Association, and an ongoing failure, including in evidence before the Court, to appreciate obligations of candour. Those matters showed that, as at the hearing date, he was not a person of good fame and character and was not a fit and proper person to remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers, warranting removal from the Roll.

Court Disposition

Declarations made and respondent removed from the Local Roll of Lawyers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

Orders

  • ['The Court declares that Mr Hendrick Jan van Es is not a person of good fame and character.' 'The Court declares that Mr Hendrick Jan van Es is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Local Roll of Lawyers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' 'The name of Mr Hendrick Jan van Es be removed from the Local...