Login
Powered by
MOMENTUM
MEDIA
Powered by MOMENTUM MEDIA
The solicitor behind controversial Facebook posts that allegedly incited Victorians to break the law will return to the Civil and Administrative Tribunal next year to learn if an application for review of documents relating to disciplinary action was successful.
A month after the Registrar of Disciplinary Action confirmed that G&B Lawyers solicitor Nathan Buckley had been suspended until June 2022, the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal (NCAT) ordered that the Council of the Law Society of NSW receive additional time to review documents relating to the disciplinary findings.
Looked at broadly, NCAT found that the affidavit does appear to give some support to Mr Buckley’s application. However, on closer analysis, NCAT added it was arguable the documents required by the tribunal to determine a disciplinary decision was originally before the professional standards committee and already disclosed.
“I am satisfied that it is probable that the council has considered and produced documents relevant to the review application. But to ensure procedural fairness to the solicitor, I find that time should be extended … [for] the council to examine the documents and to produce further documents, if any, considered relevant,” NCAT deputy president Jennifer Boland AM said in the recent judgment.
As a “last resort” if NCAT found the application unsuccessful, Mr Buckley also filed a summons to the council seeking the documents. However, NCAT found this to be without “legitimate forensic basis” and was not satisfied that it was “reasonably likely that documents relating to the investigation have relevance”.
Relevantly, NCAT revealed that a barrister and administrator behind the Facebook page “Lawyer Mums Australia” was behind a complaint about Mr Buckley. Based on his argument that her complaint was “biased”, Mr Buckley sought a summons for Facebook Australia to receive all documents and posts relevant to him.
“I have determined that the summons to the council lacks a legitimate forensic purpose, is oppressive and consequently should be set aside. I have made a similar determination of lack of forensic purpose in respect of the summons sought to be issued to Facebook. Consequently, the tribunal must decline the request to issue that summons,” deputy president Boland found.
The relevant documents, if any, has been ordered to be produced by the end of January, prior to a directions hearing on 2 February.
More to come.
The judgment can be found on AustLII and JADE: Buckley v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2021] NSWCATOD 197 (3 December 2021)
We're evolving — and so should your insights. Heads up — Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat. More information coming soon.
Naomi Neilson is a senior journalist with a focus on court reporting for Lawyers Weekly.
You can email Naomi at:
Get breaking news
Naomi Neilson
