Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Asuzu [2011] NSWADT 108

Administrative Decisions Tribunal New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Council of the New South Wales Bar Association v Asuzu [2011] NSWADT 108 Hearing dates: 9 May 2011 Decision date: 18 May 2011 Jurisdiction: Legal Services Division Before: S Norton SC, Judicial Member R Wright SC, Judicial Member C Bennett, Non Judicial Member Decision: 1. Respondent's application to strike out both applications for original decisions is dismissed 2. Costs of that application are reserved. Catchwords: Disciplinary action, professional misconduct - unsatisfactory professional conduct - strike out application Legislation Cited: Administrative Decisions Tribunal Act 1997 Legal Profession Act 2004. Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: The Council of the New South Wales Bar Association (applicant)

Ignatius Nwafor Asuzu (respondent) Representation: Counsel D A McLure (Applicant) Hicksons Lawyers (Solicitors for the Applicant) Niger Delta Lawyers and Maritime Services (Solicitors for the Respondent) File Number(s): 092020 and 102005

REasons for decision

APPLICATION FOR ORIGINAL DECISION 1On 31 July 2009 the Council of the New South Wales Bar Association ("the Council") filed in the Tribunal an application for original decision (092020) which sought findings that Ignatius Nwafor Asuzu ("the Barrister") had been guilty of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct or both. The application sought consequential orders and contained three grounds. In brief the first ground related to the failure of the Barrister to supply a Statutory Declaration after being requested to do so. The second ground related to engaging in legal practice without holding a current certificate on 3 July 2007. The third alleged failure to comply with Section 660(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004. 2The application for original decision contained particulars under each ground. The Barrister filed a reply to an application amended on 28 February 2011 alleging that the application was vexatious and oppressive and generally denying the allegations. 3On 23 March 2010 the Council filed a further application for original decision (102005). That application sought findings that the Barrister had engaged in professional misconduct in respect to grounds 1 and 3 and unsatisfactory professional conduct with respect of grounds 1 to 4. The Barrister filed a reply to that application on 3 August 2010. 4On 15 December 2010 the Council filed an amended application which added a fifth ground. 5In short the amended application alleged that the Barrister's conduct in the hearing before Windeyer J (ground 1) amounted to professional misconduct or unsatisfactory conduct because it did not reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence. Particulars were provided. 6Ground 2 made similar allegations concerning the Barrister's written and oral submissions made in proceedings in the Federal Court of Australia before Collier J. Again particulars were supplied. 7Ground 3 alleged that the Barrister in written submissions had made allegations of misconduct against a Ms Boast when the Barrister did not have reasonable grounds for believing the factual material available to him provided a proper basis for the making of those allegations. Again particulars were provided. 8Ground 4 alleged that the Barrister's written and oral submissions to the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia fell short of the standard of competence and diligence that a member of the public is entitled to expect of a reasonably competent Australian legal practitioner. Again particulars were provided. 9Ground 5 is a catch all ground which alleges that the Barrister's conduct in grounds 1 to 4 involve a substantial or consistent failure to reach or maintain a reasonable standard of competence and diligence and amounts to professional misconduct within the meaning of Section 497(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Act , 2004. 10The Barrister filed a reply to that application on 28 February 2011 claiming that it was vexatious, oppressive and discriminatory and generally explaining and denying the allegations contained therein. 11After a number of directions hearings the matter was listed for hearing for 5 days commencing 9 May 2011. At a hearing on 2 March 2011 the following directions were made: "1. Respondent to file and serve application to strike out and any further affidavit material in support within 14 days of today's date. 2. Leave granted to Applicant to file and serve further affidavit in reply within 7 days. 3. Parties have leave to relist by contacting Associate".