When the ACAT reviews a Council decision under s 413 of the Legal Profession Act 2006 (ACT), it must answer the statutory question of whether there is a reasonable likelihood the practitioner would be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct — it must not substitute the different question of whether the conduct actually occurred. The ACAT on such an appeal conducts a broad merits review, may receive further evidence, and must make the correct or preferable decision, but the ultimate onus of proof remains on the Law Society. Where a complaint involves a serious conflict of fact, summary determination under s 413 is probably undesirable. The guidelines from Department of Premier and Cabinet v Hulls and Myers v Medical Practitioners Board (Vic) govern applications for leave to appeal from the ACAT to the Supreme Court under s 86 of the ACAT Act.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 4 later cases that cite this judgment.