Del Castillo [1999] FCA 626

Del Castillo [1999] FCA 626

The appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court was entitled to regard the unresolved position of the appellant's admission in New South Wales as relevant to whether he had shown good fame and character. Once the appellant had been requisitioned in the Australian Capital Territory and advised to make disclosure in New South Wales, his continuing failure to do so made it open to the Supreme Court to consider that New South Wales authorities might take action affecting his status and character. Considering that possibility was not taking into account an irrelevant matter and was not an abdication of the Supreme Court's own discretion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
12 May 1999
Procedural Posture
Appeal Concerning Refusal of Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner / Appeal From a Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; Judgment on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['admission to Practise' 'good Fame and Character' 'failure to Disclose Prior Criminal Trial and Acquittal' 'relevance of Possible Disciplinary or Admission Consequences in Another Jurisdiction' 'mutual Recognition' 'costs']
['legal Practitioners' 'professional Admission' 'administrative Law'] ['admission to Practise' 'good Fame and Character' 'failure to Disclose Prior Criminal Trial and Acquittal' 'relevance of Possible Disciplinary or Admission Consequences in Another Jurisdiction' 'mutual Recognition' 'costs']

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

Appeal Concerning Refusal of Application for Admission as a Legal Practitioner / Appeal From a Full Court of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory; Judgment on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Supreme Court erred in law by taking into account the possibility that the Supreme Court of New South Wales might revoke the appellant's admission to practise because of non-disclosure of his murder trial and acquittal." 'Whether the Supreme Court failed to exercise its own discretion by deferring to a possible future decision of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.' 'Whether the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory should receive its costs of the appeal on a party and party basis.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal was dismissed because the Supreme Court was entitled to regard the unresolved position of the appellant's admission in New South Wales as relevant to whether he had shown good fame and character. Once the appellant had been requisitioned in the Australian Capital Territory and advised to make disclosure in New South Wales, his continuing failure to do so made it open to the Supreme Court to consider that New South Wales authorities might take action affecting his status and character. Considering that possibility was not taking into account an irrelevant matter and was not an abdication of the Supreme Court's own discretion.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal be dismissed with costs.' 'The costs of the Law Society of the Australian Capital Territory of the appeal, on a party and party basis, should be paid by the appellant.']