Legal Profession Complaints Committee v Rayney

(2017) 51 WAR 142; [2017] WASCA 78

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Multiplicity of proceedings
4. › Whether proceedings by statutory complaints body constituted abuse of process
5. › Whether failure to have proceedings heard in tandem with related proceedings constituted abuse of process
6. › Relevance of conduct of party claiming abuse
7. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 47
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Abuse of process
3. › Privity of interest
4. › Whether statutory complaints committee was privy of statutory regulatory board
5. › Whether separate statutory entities with distinct functions under same Act are privies
6. › Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA)
1. Administrative Law
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Right to be heard
4. › Whether tribunal denied party procedural fairness by deciding case on grounds never raised by any party
5. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 32
1. Administrative Law
2. › Judicial review
3. › No evidence ground
4. › Whether findings of fact were supported by any evidence
5. › Whether findings were so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker could have made them
6. › State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 105

Quick Take

The Legal Profession Complaints Committee and the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia are separate statutory entities with distinct functions under the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA); the Committee is not a privy of the Board and is not bound by the Board's conduct of proceedings. A party who presses for and obtains orders that result in separate hearings of related proceedings cannot later contend that the separate hearing of the second proceedings constitutes an abuse of process. The question of whether Wednesbury unreasonableness applies to findings of fact (as opposed to discretionary decisions) remains unresolved.