28 Mar 2023
The PCC was the successful party overall on liability and is entitled to costs on a Category 2 basis, but the appellants partial successes justify an overall 25% reduction; Band B applies to most steps and Band C applies to preparation of submissions for the substantive hearing.
28 Nov 2022
The High Court allowed the appeal in part, quashed the six week suspension and substituted a public censure because the Tribunal did not appear to have had before it, and the parties had not adverted to, the collateral consequence that suspension automatically cancels legal aid provider approval; the Court was not satisfied the Tribunal would have imposed suspension had it known that consequence and gave the appellant the benefit of the doubt; censure combined with the existing supervision ordered and already partly undertaken best balanced punishment, deterrence and rehabilitation.
20 Jul 2022
Court determined strike-off was not required because respondent had taken substantial and continuing rehabilitative steps that materially reduced the risk of repetition; Tribunal erred in treating professional and financial consequences as mitigating and in underestimating seriousness relative to appropriate comparators; two-year suspension was quashed and replaced with maximum three-year suspension from 7 February 2022; permanent suppression orders confirmed.
31 Jul 2019
The High Court upheld cancellation because the appellant's unauthorised overnight occupation of a client property, subsequent dishonesty to the owner and police, attempts to procure corroboration, persistent misleading accounts during the disciplinary process, lack of insight and abrasive conduct demonstrated he was not a fit and proper person; personal stressors did not establish likely rehabilitation or justify a lesser penalty.
7 Oct 2016
The High Court upheld the Disciplinary Tribunal's finding of unsatisfactory conduct (but dismissed the more serious misconduct charge) because the practitioner wrote to a non‑party about the subject matter of the litigation contrary to a clear oral direction by the presiding judge to take no steps in the proceeding; even if the direction could be arguable, the correct response was to seek clarification, not to ignore it, and on that basis unsatisfactory conduct was proved and penalty was appropriate though reduced on appeal.
7 Aug 2012
The application for an interim stay was declined because the appellant failed to show that public protection could be preserved (no evidence of a responsible licensed supervisor at the defunct firm), he did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a strong prospect of success, and the substantive appeal was imminent such that refusal would not prejudice the appeal; permitting interim practice would risk public harm given the finding of dishonesty.
2 Aug 2012
The High Court dismissed the appeal: the Tribunal did not err in law or principle and its decision to impose censure and make a limited costs order was within the proper discretionary range given the admitted negligence, mitigating factors (repayment, cooperation, contrition, long service, passage of time, low risk of repetition) and the Tribunal's evaluative judgment; suspension was not plainly required and the costs order was a lawful exercise of discretion.
1 Oct 2009
The Board's penalty decision was vitiated because it failed to consider the effect of s 37(1)(c)-(d) of the Real Estate Agents Act 2008 on the practical consequences of cancellation/suspension; appeal allowed, penalties set aside and the matter remitted to the Board to reassess penalty having regard to s 37(1) of the 2008 Act.