Mr Pennisi had been found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct for failing to maintain “reasonable standards of competence and diligence” when he acted in the administration of an estate.

The commissioner submitted to QCAT that Mr Pennisi’s failure to attend to the property matter over a “number of years” meant there had been an “undue delay” in the finalisation of the estate.

This conduct was found to be “quite concerning”.

Another charge concerning a separate client was also brought against Mr Pennisi but was eventually dropped.

As one of the two charges brought against him had been dismissed, Mr Pennisi argued before the Queensland Supreme Court he should only be ordered to pay either 20 per cent of the commissioner’s costs or a small percentage concerning the successful charge.

Mr Pennisi said the dismissed charge had “occupied the bulk of the first day of the hearing” and that his cooperation in the disciplinary action meant that costs relating to the charges should be minimal.

When this was put before QCAT, the member said he found there was no reason to refuse the whole of the commissioner’s costs.

Mr Pennisi argued that QCAT erred in failing to construe the term “exceptional circumstances” as applying to permit a proportionate reduction of his costs of the discipline application where he had successfully contested one of the charges.

Alternatively, Mr Pennisi submitted the tribunal erred in failing to treat the two charges as separate disciplinary applications.

Chief Justice Helen Bowskill, along with Justices Jean Dalton and Declan Kelly, found that when a practitioner successfully contests a charge brought within the one disciplinary action, “the rationale for the practitioner to be required to bear all costs … is not apparent”.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and ordered that instead of the whole of the costs, Mr Pennisi pay the costs of the complaint for the successful charge only, to be assessed on a standard basis.