A claim consultant for Helping Hand said she became “immediately concerned” when she learnt the two men were related and submitted she did not know whether Helping Hand “has been afforded a just and fair trial (should the dispute progress to trial)”.

By affidavit, solicitor for the applicant, Andrew Wright, deposed when he instructed Michael Saies to act as counsel, he was unaware of the familiar relationship. Further, he clarified this had “nothing to do with the identity of the medical expert” consulting Helping Hand.

The tribunal considered it did not have the jurisdiction to remove Michael Saies as barrister and dismissed the application.

In his reasons, deputy president Judge Mark Calligeros said it made sense “from a policy point of view” that responsibility for supervising the conduct of legal practitioners be left to the Supreme Court.

“Greater consistency is achieved by having one court exercise that function,” Judge Calligeros submitted.

VIEW ALL

While Judge Calligeros said he was drawn to a suggestion by Helping Hand that he consider the merits of its application and potentially save it from making an application to the Supreme Court and avoid a further hearing, he concluded it was inappropriate to do so.

“Exercising supervisory jurisdiction over legal practitioners is the province of the Supreme Court,” Judge Calligeros concluded.

“As observed earlier, one reason to repose supervisory jurisdiction with the Supreme Court is to achieve consistency of approach. That goal is not assisted by this court advancing a view about the merits.”

The case is: Mujakovic v Helping Hand Aged Care Inc [2025] SAET 40 (7 May 2025)