Sande, Paul Alexander v The Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland & Anor [1996] FCA 49

Sande, Paul Alexander v The Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland & Anor [1996] FCA 49

At the time of Mr Sande's application, the occupation of conveyancer had ceased to exist in Queensland and was not a lawful occupation, so there could be no equivalence for purposes of registration under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth); accordingly, the appeal must fail.

Parties
Applicant: Paul Alexander Sande; First Respondent: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland; Second Respondent: Queensland Law Society Incorporated
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 February 1996
Procedural Posture
Administrative Law Appeal / On Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (cth), Registration of Conveyancers, Equivalence of Occupation, Issue Estoppel
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (cth) Registration of Conveyancers Equivalence of Occupation Issue Estoppel

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Alexander Sande

Applicant

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Queensland

First Respondent

Queensland Law Society Incorporated

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Administrative Law Appeal / On Appeal From the Administrative Appeals Tribunal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the occupation of 'conveyancer' existed in Queensland for purposes of registration under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth)
  2. 2 Whether equivalence of occupation was established between South Australia and Queensland under the Act
  3. 3 Whether Supreme Court judgment acts as issue estoppel against applicant

Ratio Decidendi

At the time of Mr Sande's application, the occupation of conveyancer had ceased to exist in Queensland and was not a lawful occupation, so there could be no equivalence for purposes of registration under the Mutual Recognition Act 1992 (Cth); accordingly, the appeal must fail.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed with costs.