5 Apr 2023
The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because there was no statutory basis for appeal from a High Court s 52(4) admission order, the applicant was not a party and had no entitlement to be joined after significant delay, and no exceptional circumstances justified a direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
17 Aug 2020
Majority: The fit and proper person test under s55 is forward-looking and fact-specific; where, on balance and viewing all evidence in the round, an applicant demonstrates sufficient character, time elapsed since offending, rehabilitation or minimal connection between offending and professional function, admission may be ordered despite prior convictions; in this case the majority held the Court of Appeal correctly admitted Stanley because his convictions did not directly relate to professional functions, he had otherwise good character and the risks did not justify refusal. Minority: multipl…
19 Sept 2019
The Court upheld the High Court's finding that the applicant has a longstanding, enduring defect of character evidenced by aggressive, threatening and unbalanced conduct toward police and lawyers; that the defect materially impairs his ability to meet the statutory fundamental obligations of lawyers and to uphold the administration of justice; the new evidence was admissible and reinforced the pattern of behaviour; supervision after admission would not be a reliable safeguard absent persuasive expert evidence, therefore the applicant is not a fit and proper person and the appeal must be dismi…
2 Sept 2011
Non-compliance with rule 6(4)(a)'s 21 day service requirement was directory and did not preclude the Law Society from opposing the application; however the applicant failed to discharge the onus to show she is a fit and proper person because the three references were insufficiently current, local and probative of present character and therefore the application for admission was declined.
10 Nov 2010
Because the applicant gave notice under s19 of the Trans-Tasman Mutual Recognition Act 1997, the Registrar issued the requisite certificate after confirming the applicant held a current Queensland non-principal practising certificate, the applicant satisfied the requirements of s49(4) and therefore, under s52, the Court was obliged to admit him and made the order of admission.
16 Mar 2006
Given the applicant's substantial legal experience (domestic and overseas), the Court was satisfied that, despite insufficient proximate New Zealand experience, he is a suitable person to practise on his own account after considering the s55(6) factors and the lack of opposition from the District Law Society, and therefore granted leave under s55(5).