Coe v NSW Bar Association [2000] NSWCA 13

Coe v NSW Bar Association [2000] NSWCA 13

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant swore an affidavit that was substantially false and did so knowingly. Even without relying on the additional finding that he intended to deceive, the established misconduct of a legal practitioner knowingly swearing a false affidavit filed in court proceedings was sufficient to sustain the order removing his name from the roll. The proposed fresh evidence did not warrant admission, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 February 2000
Procedural Posture
Appeal by Way of Rehearing From an Order of the Legal Services Tribunal Removing a Barrister's Name From the Roll of Legal Practitioners / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['professional Misconduct' 'knowingly False Affidavit' 'removal From Roll of Legal Practitioners' 'scope of Disciplinary Charge' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']
['legal Profession' 'professional Discipline' 'civil Procedure'] ['professional Misconduct' 'knowingly False Affidavit' 'removal From Roll of Legal Practitioners' 'scope of Disciplinary Charge' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal']

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 by Way of Rehearing From an Order of the Legal Services Tribunal Removing a Barrister's Name From the Roll of Legal Practitioners / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Legal Services Tribunal's finding that the appellant swore a false affidavit with intent to deceive went beyond the scope of the charge." 'Whether the appellant should have leave to adduce fresh evidence as to contrition and good character on appeal.' 'Whether the established misconduct of knowingly swearing a false affidavit justified removal from the roll of legal practitioners.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal was entitled to find that the appellant swore an affidavit that was substantially false and did so knowingly. Even without relying on the additional finding that he intended to deceive, the established misconduct of a legal practitioner knowingly swearing a false affidavit filed in court proceedings was sufficient to sustain the order removing his name from the roll. The proposed fresh evidence did not warrant admission, and the appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The appeal should be dismissed with costs.']