Senanayake v Law Society of NSW

[2026] NSWSC 790

Supreme Court of NSW

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. OCCUPATIONS — Legal practitioners — application to the Supreme Court to review Law Society’s refusal to renew practising certificate — Legal Profession Uniform Law s 100 — whether plaintiff is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate — onus on plaintiff — hearing de novo on the merits — review of Law Society’s decision does not extend to reviewing the decisions of the Migration Agents Registration Authority and Administrative Appeals Tribunal which were relied on — no real acknowledgment of wrongdoing — lack of insight

Quick Take

The Court held that a solicitor seeking review of the Law Society's refusal to renew a practising certificate under s 100 LPUL bears the onus of establishing fitness and propriety, and cannot use that review to collaterally attack final, unappealed decisions of the AAT and MARA. The Court further held that persistent refusal to acknowledge wrongdoing found by a properly constituted tribunal, and a complete absence of insight into the conduct that led to disciplinary action in a cognate profession, are sufficient to sustain a finding that the applicant is not a fit and proper person — even where the disciplinary sanction period has expired and there is no other adverse conduct. The 'I have done my time' argument does not overcome the absence of genuine acknowledgment and remorse, given the protective (not punitive) function of the fitness assessment.