NSW Caselaw
New South Wales Court of Appeal
CITATION: Prothonotary of the Supreme Court of New South Wales v Sharp [2006] NSWCA 27
HEARING DATE(S): 23 February 2006
JUDGMENT DATE: 28 February 2006
JUDGMENT OF: Mason P; Santow JA; Tobias JA
DECISION: 1. DECLARE that the Opponent has been guilty of professional misconduct in that he engaged in conduct between 8 December 1995 and 28 November 1996, for which he pleaded guilty in the District Court of New South Wales of thirty-nine indictable offences, on 5 April 2004, namely; (i) Sixteen counts of offences of knowingly and dishonestly with intent to gain advantage made improper use of position as a company officer, contrary to ss232(6) and 1317FA of the Corporations Law, being offences under the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) by virtue of s1401 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and; (ii) Twenty-three counts of offences of make false or misleading statement with intent to obtain a valuable thing, contrary to s178BB of the Crimes Act 1900 (NSW); 2. DECLARE that the Opponent is not a person of good fame and character; 3. DECLARE that the Opponent is not a fit and proper person to remain on The Local Roll of lawyers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales; 4. ORDER that the name of the Opponent be removed from The Local Roll of lawyers of the Supreme Court of New South Wales
CATCHWORDS: LEGAL PRACTITIONERS - solicitors - application to have legal practitioner struck off Local Roll - offences of dishonesty under the Corporations Law and Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) - whether professional misconduct - findings of professional misconduct - declarations and removal from Local Roll
Crimes Act 1900 (NSW) s 178BB LEGISLATION CITED: Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 1401 Corporations Law s 232(6), s 1317FA
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate