Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Siggins [2021] NSWCA 40

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Siggins [2021] NSWCA 40 Hearing dates: 15-17 September 2020 Decision date: 25 March 2021 Before: Payne JA, McCallum JA, Beech-Jones J Decision: In the Bar Council's proceedings (2019/94353), the Court: (1) declares that Julian Phillip Siggins is not a fit and proper person to remain on the roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court in accordance with s 22 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW); (2) orders that the name Julian Phillip Siggins be removed from the roll; and (3) orders that Mr Siggins pay the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association's costs of the proceedings. In the proceedings commenced by Mr Siggins in the Federal Court that were cross-vested to this Court (2019/195328), the Court orders that: (1) the proceedings be dismissed; and (2) Mr Siggins pay the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association's costs of the proceedings. Catchwords: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Court's inherent jurisdiction to supervise and discipline legal practitioners – application for removal of barrister's name from the roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court of New South Wales – where barrister practised principally in New South Wales for six years holding a practising certificate from Queensland – whether representations to the Queensland Bar Association as to the barrister's principal place of practice were made dishonestly – whether barrister a fit and proper person to remain on the Supreme Court roll CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – challenge by barrister to validity of certain provisions governing the legal profession in Tasmania and Queensland – where disciplinary proceedings against the barrister did not involve any allegation of breach of any of the impugned provisions – whether there is any "matter" arising under the Constitution in respect of the impugned provisions CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – challenge to validity of certain provisions governing the legal profession in New South Wales or their application to the barrister – whether impugned provisions have any extra‑territorial effect – whether s 117 of the Constitution operates to render the impugned provisions inapplicable to the barrister – whether impugned provisions invalid as contrary to s 92 of the Constitution – whether impugned provisions inconsistent with various provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether impugned provisions inconsistent with Chapter III of the Constitution as compromising the institutional integrity of Federal and State Courts Legislation Cited: Australia Act 1986 (Cth), s 2 Commonwealth Constitution, ss 76, 92, 109, 117, Ch III Evidence Act 1995 (NSW), s 140(2) Family Law Act 1975 (Cth), s 122 Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), ss 30, 39, 39B, 55A, 55B, 55D, 78, 78B, 86(1)(ga), Part VIIIA Jurisdiction of Courts (Cross‑vesting) Act 1987 (Cth), s 4 Legal Practitioners Act 1893 (WA) Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 45, Part 2.4 Div 11 Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), s 48, 49 Legal Profession Act 2007 (Tas), s 48 Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), ss 22, 42, Sch 3 cl 5, Sch 3 cl 12 Cases Cited: AMS v AIF (1999) 199 CLR 160; [1999] HCA 26 APLA Limited v Legal Services Commissioner of New South Wales (2005) 224 CLR 322; [2005] HCA 44 Australian Capital Television Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1992) 177 CLR 106; [1992] HCA 45 Berger v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2019] NSWCA 119 Betfair Pty Limited v Racing New South Wales (2012) 249 CLR 217; [2012] HCA 12 Briginshaw v Briginshaw (1938) 60 CLR 336; [1938] HCA 34 Butler v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (1961) 106 CLR 268; [1961] HCA 32 Clubb v Edwards; Preston v Avery (2019) 267 CLR 171; [2019] HCA 11 Cole v Whitfield (1988) 165 CLR 360; [1988] HCA 18 Council of the Law Society of New South Wales v Jafari [2020] NSWCA 53 Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Power (2008) 71 NSWLR 451; [2008] NSWCA 135 Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Siggins [2019] NSWCA 258 Croome v The State of Tasmania (1997) 191 CLR 119; [1997] HCA 5 Cunliffe v The Commonwealth (1994) 182 CLR 272; [1994] HCA 44 De Pardo v Legal Practitioners Complaints Committee (2000) 97 FCR 575; [2000] FCA 335 Gratwick v Johnson (1945) 70 CLR 1; [1945] HCA 7 Henry v Boehm (1973) 128 CLR 482; [1973] HCA 32 In re The Judiciary Act 1903-1920 and In re The Navigation Act 1912-1920 (1921) 29 CLR 257; [1921] HCA 20 Krakowski v Eurolynx Properties Ltd (1995) 183 CLR 563; [1995] HCA 68 Law Society of New South Wales v McNamara (1980) 47 NSWLR 72 Legal Profession Board of Tasmania v Haque (2015) 23 Tas R 434; [2015] TASSC 5 McCloy v State of New South Wales (2015) 257 CLR 178; [2015] HCA 34 Mobil Oil Australia Pty Limited v The State of Victoria (2002) 211 CLR 1; [2002] HCA 27 Nationwide News Pty Ltd v Wills (1992) 177 CLR 1; [1992] HCA 46 New South Wales Bar Association v Cummins (2001) 52 NSWLR 279; [2001] NSWCA 284 NSW Bar Association v Meakes [2006] NSWCA 340 Palmer v Western Australia [2021] HCA 5 Prothonotary v Comeskey [2018] NSWCA 18 Prothonotary v Holt [2008] NSWCA 136 Prothonotary v Montenegro [2015] NSWCA 409 Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Nikolaidis [2010] NSWCA 73 Street v Queensland Bar Association (1989) 168 CLR 461; [1989] HCA 53 Telstra Corporation Ltd v Worthing (1999) 197 CLR 61; [1999] HCA 12 Work Health Authority v Outback Ballooning Pty Ltd (2019) 266 CLR 428; [2019] HCA 2 Category: Principal judgment Parties: Council of New South Wales Bar Association (applicant in proceedings 2019/94353 and respondent in proceedings 2019/195328) Julian Phillip Siggins (respondent in proceedings 2019/94353 and applicant in proceedings 2019/195328) Representation: Counsel: E Cheeseman SC; D Habashy (Council of the New South Wales Bar Association) In person (Julian Phillip Siggins) Solicitors: Norton Rose Fulbright (Council of the New South Wales Bar Association) File Number(s): 2019/195328; 2019/94353 Publication restriction: Nil