Castle v Queensland Law Society [2021] QCAT 300: Acting for the regulator of the legal profession in resisting a review of its decision to refuse a practising certificate to a practitioner whom it was not satisfied was a “fit and proper person” as required by the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). As to the interface between a decision as to fitness and propriety on the one hand, and on the other a charge or finding of professional misconduct at the suit of the Legal Services Commissioner, Daubney J confirmed that the former does not depend upon any process or outcome to the effect of the latter. The LPA does not require that the QLS’s consideration of fitness to continue holding a practising certificate be preceded by disciplinary charges brought by the LSC by way of a discipline application under the LPA.

Recent Posts

See All

INSURANCE (GENERAL)/FINANCIAL SERVICES ​ Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Youi Pty Ltd [2020] FCA 1701: Representing a major insurer in the Federal Court (with John McKenna QC) in pr

INSOLVENCY & APPELLATE LAW Faamate v Congregational Christian Church in Samoa-Australia (Ipswich Congregation) [2020] 4 QdR 221: Acting (with Paul McQuade QC) for the successful respondent to an appea