Picos v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2022] FCA 755

Picos v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2022] FCA 755

The injunction was refused because the applicant had not applied for renewal of an Australian practising certificate for 2022/2023, the order sought would in substance compel the Law Society Council to renew a certificate without undertaking its statutory assessment under the LPUL, the DDA and the LPUL/General Rules were not in conflict because the inherent requirements provisions worked in tandem, s 92 of the Constitution had no application, the applicant's prima facie case was not sufficiently strong, and the balance of convenience and justice weighed heavily against interfering with the statutory scheme designed to protect clients, the public and confidence in the legal profession.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 June 2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application Under S 46 PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) for an Interim Injunction Pending Determination of a Complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission / Interlocutory Injunction Application
Outcome
Application for an injunction refused with costs.
Legal Topics
['interim Injunction Under S 46 PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'renewal of Australian Practising Certificate' 'fitness to Hold a Practising Certificate' 'inherent Requirements Exception Under S 21 a of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth)' 'balance of Convenience' 'prima Facie Case' 'constitution Ss 92 and 109']
['human Rights' 'disability Discrimination' 'legal Profession Regulation' 'administrative and Constitutional Law'] ['interim Injunction Under S 46 PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth)' 'renewal of Australian Practising Certificate' 'fitness to Hold a Practising Certificate' 'inherent Requirements Exception Under S 21 a of the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (cth)' 'balance of Convenience' 'prima Facie Case' 'constitution Ss 92 and 109']

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

Urgent Application Under S 46 PP of the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (cth) for an Interim Injunction Pending Determination of a Complaint to the Australian Human Rights Commission / Interlocutory Injunction Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant established a prima facie case of sufficient strength to justify preservation of the status quo pending determination of her Australian Human Rights Commission complaint.' "Whether the balance of convenience and justice favoured an interim injunction preventing the respondents from terminating or refusing to renew the applicant's licence to practise law beyond 30 June 2022." 'Whether the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) and Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (NSW) conflicted with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992 (Cth).' "Whether s 92 of the Constitution had any application to the applicant's complaint that the Law Society was restricting her freedom in trade, commerce and intercourse."]

Ratio Decidendi

The injunction was refused because the applicant had not applied for renewal of an Australian practising certificate for 2022/2023, the order sought would in substance compel the Law Society Council to renew a certificate without undertaking its statutory assessment under the LPUL, the DDA and the LPUL/General Rules were not in conflict because the inherent requirements provisions worked in tandem, s 92 of the Constitution had no application, the applicant's prima facie case was not sufficiently strong, and the balance of convenience and justice weighed heavily against interfering with the statutory scheme designed to protect clients, the public and confidence in the legal profession.

Court Disposition

Application for an injunction refused with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's application for an injunction be refused." "The applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application to be taxed if not agreed."]