16 Dec 2025
Because new matters relevant to the issues had come to the Law Society's attention and both parties accepted remittal was appropriate, the court exercised its discretion under s6(11)(c) to remit the matter to the Law Society for reconsideration rather than substitute its own decision.
16 Oct 2025
The Court held the Tribunal's penalty was clearly wrong given the systemic, widespread and serious accounting failures and lack of supervision; suspension was the appropriate sanction despite absence of proven dishonesty, with differentiated lengths reflecting principal (R1) and lesser (R2) culpability, and the Tribunal's two year supervisory conditions were within power and not rendered ultra vires by prior council conditions. The suspensions were backdated to 14 November 2023.
9 Nov 2016
Because the Law Society's principal basis for imposing conditions on the appellants' practising certificates was not established by evidence, the Decisions were set aside and the matters remitted to the Law Society for reconsideration; the Law Society, as the primary disciplinary decision-maker, should reassess whether and what conditions are appropriate after considering the appellants' submissions. Costs were apportioned so that the appellants recover 50% of their costs due to a split on a major statutory construction issue resolved for the Society.
9 Nov 2016
The Decisions imposing conditions were set aside because the principal evidential basis for imposing them was not established; the matters were remitted to the Law Society for fresh consideration because the Law Society, as primary decision-maker, must reassess whether conditions are necessary after hearing the appellants' full case; costs were apportioned with appellants entitled to 50% of their costs due to the Court resolving a major statutory construction issue in favour of the Law Society.
5 Oct 2016
Section 7(2)(a) of the Practising Certificate (Special Conditions) Rules is ultra vires insofar as it conditions the Law Society's power under section 6(5)(e) LPO on an actual application; the Law Society nonetheless has power under section 6(5)(e) read with section 3(i) of the Rules to impose the Schedule 1 conditions on extant practising certificates. Because the evidential basis for imposing the conditions on these appellants was weak, the court remitted the matters to the Law Society for reconsideration in light of the court's observations.
5 Oct 2016
Section 7(2)(a) of the Practising Certificate (Special Conditions) Rules is ultra vires to the extent that it conditions the Law Society's power under s6(5)(e) LPO on an actual application; accordingly the Law Society retained power under s6(5)(e) (read with s3(i) of the Rules) to impose the Schedule 1 conditions on extant practising certificates, but the specific factual basis for imposing the conditions on these appellants was insufficiently supported by the evidence and the matters are remitted to the Law Society for reconsideration.
4 Jun 1983
The Council's conclusion that the appellant had not acquired substantial experience in the law and legal practice equivalent to two years limited practice was within the discretion entrusted to the Council, the Council was entitled to issue and apply guidelines as an evidentiary standard, and the court will not overturn such a decision unless it is one no reasonable body could have reached; on the evidence the Council's decision was not unreasonable so the appeal is dismissed.