Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
An NSW lawyer and former migration agent fought to recover his practising certificate by insisting he did not deserve to be shunned from the profession because there was “nothing to be sorry about”.
Acting Justice Michael Elkaim of the NSW Supreme Court was highly critical of Senarath Bandara Chanaka Senanayake’s attitude to a decision of the NSW Law Society not to renew his practising certificate on a number of occasions between 2020 and 2025.
Senanayake, who has practised as a lawyer in both Sri Lanka and NSW, was registered as a migration agent from 2010 until a cancellation by the Migration Agents Regulation Authority in 2016.
The cancellation related to an investigation into complaints of protection visas with similar wording, referred to as “concerns of potentially duplicated and template-based production claims”.
A review in the Administrative Appeals Tribunal was unsuccessful.
The Law Society’s first refusal followed shortly thereafter.
In a summons application before the Supreme Court, Senanayake claimed the allegations were “bogus”, the complainant “misled” the tribunal, and the Law Society’s reliance on the Migration Agents Regulation Authority decision “must also be erroneous”.
In response, the Law Society said Senanayake’s ongoing and persistent rejection of the authority and tribunal’s findings “was the glaring hole in his pursuit of a practising certificate”.
“In short, the plaintiff’s lack of insight into the reasons for his rejection was simply too fundamental to overcome,” acting Justice Elkaim noted of the Law Society’s defence submissions.
During the hearing, acting Justice Elkaim said Senanayake was “so confident (as to the wrongness of the decisions)” that he simply repeated his submissions in each of his applications.
The Law Society put Senanayake in touch with an expert in regulatory matters, who advised Senanayake that the council wanted to see submissions that canvassed the reasons at the heart of the disciplinary findings, his remorse, restitution, and recovery.
However, Senanayake was “clearly not interested in remorse because he believes there is nothing to be sorry about”.
Asked about rehabilitation, Senanayake said he has undertaken further studies, a master’s degree, and has written a book entitling him to a master’s degree at the University of Selinus.
Questioned on why he referenced his academia, Senanayake said there was “nothing else … because I haven’t done anything wrong”.
Senanayake’s submission that he has “done my time” might have been considered “very powerful” if not for his ongoing denial of wrongdoing and his complete absence of insight, the court found.
“He refuses to acknowledge that he did wrong, and he refuses to respect the decisions that have gone against him.
“There is even a degree of arrogance in his attitude to the extent that he has made no attempt to persuade the defendant of any failings in the above decisions, instead suggesting that prima facie deficiencies (whatever they might be) are enough to found success in his application,” acting Justice Elkaim said.
The court was also concerned about the serious allegations Senanayake made against another solicitor, including claims she intentionally fabricated facts and provided false and misleading statements to Australian government agencies.
“In my view, the overwhelming lack of insight displayed by the plaintiff confirms the correctness of the attitude taken by the defendant,” acting Justice Elkaim said.
“The plaintiff has not discharged the onus upon him to establish that he is a fit and proper person.”
Citation: Senanayake v Law Society of NSW [2026] NSWSC 790.
