Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Tatar [2005] NSWCA 104

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Tatar [2005] NSWCA 104

The opponent's convictions for dishonesty offences, coupled with his failure to make full and frank disclosure to the Legal Practitioners Admission Board, amount to professional misconduct and demonstrate that he is not of good fame and character and not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of legal practitioners.

Parties
Claimant: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; Opponent: Andrew Tatar
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 March 2005
Procedural Posture
Professional Misconduct Application / Court of Appeal Judgment
Outcome
Declarations and orders 1-5 of the Summons made; declaration in para 2 omitting sub-para (iii) in relation to deliberate misleading of the Board.
Legal Topics
Professional Misconduct, Solicitors—admission and Removal, Non Disclosure of Criminal Offences, Dishonesty Offences
Legal Profession Professional Discipline Professional Misconduct Solicitors—admission and Removal Non Disclosure of Criminal Offences Dishonesty Offences

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 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales

Claimant

Andrew Tatar

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Professional Misconduct Application / Court of Appeal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the opponent is guilty of professional misconduct
  2. 2 Whether the opponent is not a person of good fame and character
  3. 3 Whether the opponent is not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of legal practitioners

Ratio Decidendi

The opponent's convictions for dishonesty offences, coupled with his failure to make full and frank disclosure to the Legal Practitioners Admission Board, amount to professional misconduct and demonstrate that he is not of good fame and character and not a fit and proper person to remain on the Roll of legal practitioners.

Court Disposition

Declarations and orders 1-5 of the Summons made; declaration in para 2 omitting sub-para (iii) in relation to deliberate misleading of the Board.

Orders

  • Declaration that the opponent is guilty of professional misconduct
  • Declaration that the opponent is not a person of good fame and character