A Queensland woman has failed to shake off an interim injunction that has prevented her from acting as an alleged sham lawyer.
The Legal Services Commissioner has brought proceedings against Heidi Ward for allegedly engaging in the provision of legal services without a practising certificate or legal qualifications.
The case has yet to be finally determined, but last year, Justice Lincoln Crowley granted an interim injunction to restrain Ward from engaging in legal practice, advertising she was entitled to engage, and requesting or receiving considerations for the provision of such services.
The order was made under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (LPA).
Five months later, Ward applied for an extension of time to appeal Justice Crowley’s decision.
Ward’s proposed grounds of appeal contend there were no serious questions to be tried and no risk of irreparable harm.
She also claimed the legal ban against her acting as a McKenzie friend or educator “may cause harm to those who cannot access information”.
In her submissions, Ward claimed it took a “great deal of time and due diligence to absorb the legislation” and elements of the injunction, and she has also decided to strike out the commissioner’s complaint.
Justices David Boddice, Susan Brown and Chris Bleby of the Court of Appeal said that while they understood the difficulties experienced by self-represented litigants, the explanations for delay were not satisfactory.
Given that the parties have filed evidence and submissions and the final hearing is ready to be listed, the Legal Services Commissioner argued the proposed appeal was “unmeritorious and lacks utility”.
The bench clarified that the injunction “merely restrains” Ward from doing what she is already prohibited from doing under the LPA, given she is not an Australian legal practitioner within the meaning of the act.
“Whether her conduct relied upon by the Legal Services Commissioner has in fact contravened the LPA is not a matter which will be determined until the final hearing.
“The fact that no final determination has been made whether she has contravened the LPA demonstrates there is no utility in granting the extension of time,” Boddice, Brown, and Bleby said.
The bench added that Ward could raise the substantive matters in her proposed ground of appeal at the final hearing as to whether a permanent injunction should be granted, “insofar as they are relevant”.
The case: Ward v Legal Services Commission [2025] QCA 171.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
