| [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback] High Court of | |
| | |
You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> High Court of Australia Special Leave Dispositions >> 2010 >> [2010] HCASL 4 [Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Help]
Chin v Legal Practice Board of Western Australia
Last Updated: 10 March 2010
NI KOK (NICHOLAS) CHIN
v
LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD OF
[2010] HCASL 4
P36/2009
1. The respondent imposed conditions on the applicant's practising certificate, pursuant to s 40(3) of the Legal Practice Act 2003 (WA), requiring that he practise only as an employed solicitor and that his work be closely supervised. The State Administrative Tribunal (Chaney J, Ms M Jordan and Mr B Hunt) conducted a de novo hearing and affirmed the decision of the respondent. The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Western Australia (Pullin and Newnes JJA) dismissing the applicant's appeal against orders of the Tribunal.
2. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's submissions, including that the respondent did not have jurisdiction to impose the conditions without some finding of incapacity or unfitness or some disciplinary proceedings being successful against the practitioner and, alternatively, that the conditions were not necessary. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not have the proper appreciation of, and did not observe, the standards of conduct expected of legal practitioners.
3. The Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal and dismissed the appeal on the basis, inter alia, that no ground of appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The proposed grounds were prolix, contained vexatious and offensive material and did not raise any doubt about the correctness of the Tribunal's decision, nor any other basis for granting leave in the interest of justice.
4. Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
5. The applicant's written submissions raise no arguable ground for the grant of special leave. We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Court of Appeal and any appeal would have insufficient prospects of success.
6. The application is brought out of time and the applicant seeks an order under r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 dispensing with the requirement to comply with the time limit in r 41.02.1. That order should be refused for the reason that even if it were granted, it is inevitable that the application for special leave to appeal would be dismissed.
7. Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.
| K.M. Hayne | S.M. Crennan |
AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCASL/2010/4.html
No comments:
Post a Comment