A Queensland tribunal upheld the Bar Association’s decision to refuse to renew a practising certificate for a barrister who failed to make a timely disclosure about the winding up of his company.
A barrister known only under the pseudonym Peter Smyth has failed to overturn a decision of the Bar Association of Queensland to refuse to renew his practising certificate in June 2024 on the basis that it was satisfied he was not a fit and proper person to engage in legal work.
For almost a year, Smyth failed to give the Bar notice that an order had been made to wind up a company he was a director of. When he did, it was supposedly part of his application to renew.
By that time, Smyth had already been the subject of an April 2014 creditor’s petition and a bankruptcy order, and had been informed by someone at the Bar Council of his disclosure obligations.
In a decision delivered last November but published on Monday (12 January), Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal judicial member Peter Lyons KC said, given the nature of Smyth’s conduct, he was also satisfied he was not a fit and proper person.
Smyth’s explanation that he did not turn his mind to whether the wind-up order was a suitability matter was dismissed by Lyons, who found this failure was “of some significance” to his fitness to practice.
The barrister also failed to give notice that a creditor’s petition had been filed in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia in October 2023 on behalf of the Child Support Registrar.
Lyons said this “deliberate decision” demonstrated a willingness by Smyth to ignore the obligations imposed on him, “of which he was well aware … [for] his continued membership of the legal profession”.
“Associated with this were his untrue statements as to the basis for his cross-demand; and his description of his financial statement, which was distinctly lacking in candour,” Lyons said.
The tribunal was told Smyth had also engaged in legal practice in Victoria in July 2018 despite not holding a practising certificate.
Smyth claimed he believed he was entitled to do so because his name was on the Victorian Bar roll, but this was not accepted.
“While it may be regarded as a somewhat mitigating factor that he appears to have practised on only three days, nevertheless, it is a serious thing for a lawyer to engage in legal practice without a practising certificate,” Lyons said.
“That is compounded by the fact that the applicant did not hold professional indemnity insurance at the time, a matter of which he must have been aware.”
The case: Smyth (a pseudonym) v Bar Association of Queensland (No 2) [2024] QCAT 488.
