Legal Practitioner v Council of the Law Society of the ACT

[2016] ACTCA 35

ACT Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Professions and Trades
2. › Lawyers
3. › Professional misconduct
4. › Appeal against findings of professional misconduct
5. › Appeal from single judge of Supreme Court
6. › Whether evidence of witnesses inconsistent
7. › Whether ACAT's credibility findings should be disturbed on appeal
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Functus officio
4. › Power to reopen proceedings
5. › Failure to afford procedural fairness before making penalty orders
6. › Whether decision a nullity for failure to exercise jurisdiction
7. › Whether tribunal entitled to reopen proceedings
8. › ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 56(c)(iii)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Failure to give opportunity to be heard on penalty
4. › Whether failure to exercise jurisdiction
5. › Application of Bhardwaj principle
6. › Whether original decision a nullity
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Extraordinary circumstances
4. › Whether failure to afford procedural fairness constitutes extraordinary circumstances
5. › ACT Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2008 (ACT), s 56(c)(iii)

Quick Take

Where an administrative tribunal makes a substantive decision without affording a party any opportunity to be heard, the decision is a nullity for failure to exercise jurisdiction, and the tribunal is entitled (and may be required) to reopen the proceedings and conduct a proper hearing. Alternatively, a complete failure to afford procedural fairness constitutes 'extraordinary circumstances' under s 56(c)(iii) of the ACAT Act. Considerations of mere efficiency do not constitute 'extraordinary circumstances' under that provision.