Keung v Abbott & Anor [No 2]

[2019] SASCFC 39

South Australia Full Court

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Reopening appeal
4. › Perfected orders
5. › Power of intermediate appellate court to reopen
6. › Whether subsequent change in law justifies reopening
7. › Whether party failed to bring best case
8. › Supreme Court Civil Rules 2006 (SA), r 242
1. Appeal
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Reopening appeal
4. › Principles governing discretion to reopen
5. › Finality of litigation
6. › Misapprehension of fact or law
7. › Whether jurisdiction confined after perfection of orders
1. Administrative Law
2. › Tribunals
3. › Jurisdiction
4. › Decision made beyond power
5. › Whether appeal competent from purported decision
6. › Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA), s 86(1)
1. Legal Profession
2. › Disciplinary proceedings
3. › Limitation period
4. › Extension of time
5. › Discretion to extend
6. › Relevant considerations
7. › Delay
8. › Explanation for delay
9. › Strength of case
10. › Public interest
11. › Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA), s 82(2a)

Quick Take

An appeal under s 86(1) of the Legal Practitioners Act 1981 (SA) is competent even where the Tribunal's decision was made beyond power, because the section extends to 'purported' decisions. Where the Tribunal has committed jurisdictional error, the Full Court may exercise the Tribunal's discretion afresh under s 86(3) rather than remitting the matter. The power to reopen perfected appellate orders is narrowly confined and the correctness of Players Pty Ltd (In Liq) v Clone Pty Ltd on the scope of r 242 SCCR is doubted.