The Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (LPAB) is responsible for making recommendations to the Supreme Court regarding applications for admission to the Queensland Bar Profession. The main task of the Council is to assess the suitability (academic qualifications and practical legal training) and suitability (good reputation and character) of candidates for admission at local, national and international levels. In collaboration with the Chief Justice of Queensland, the Council plays an active role in the approval of academic and practical legal education courses offered by Queensland universities and educational institutions. The Council`s responsibilities also include an advisory aspect, as it takes into account suggestions from other stakeholders such as the judiciary, the Legal Admissions Advisory Committee, the Queensland Government and the legal profession. The Council is a statutory body established in accordance with Chapter 7, Part 7.5 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 and aims to support the judiciary, the legal profession and the public interest by ensuring the integrity of those entering the legal profession. For applicants for admission, a list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) about admission to the Profession of the Queensland Bar has been compiled. Phone: (07) 3842 5985 | Fax: (07) 3221 7193 | Email: admissions@qls.com.au The Law Practitioners` Admissions Council supports resilience and well-being in the legal profession. Some resources and other information are available to legal professionals. In this case, there was a cascading dispute resolution clause. The arbitration clause contained the dispute settlement clause and provided that “disputes or disputes”, if not resolved, could be submitted to arbitration by both parties. The court rejected the plaintiff`s argument that section 7 of the Act requires an arbitration clause in order to precisely define the legal relationship in respect of which the clause is to apply. The Court held that, in accordance with orthodox principles of contract interpretation, it was permissible to refer to the broader dispute settlement clause to determine what the term “disputes or differences” meant. The court held that, correctly interpreting the subcontract, the arbitration clause referred to all disputes and disputes arising between the plaintiff and the defendant as parties to the subcontract.

The Court held that this was a defined legal relationship within the meaning of section 7 of the Act, so the arbitration clause was an arbitration agreement within the meaning of the Act. The court dismissed the appeal with costs. A registrar ordered that a debtor company go bankrupt. An application for reconsideration of this decision was made on behalf of the debtor company. The application was dropped and the court ordered the lawyers who had submitted the application to pay the plaintiff`s fees. One of the questions for the court was whether the expert was performing the right task in accordance with the contract (the mediation agreement). The expert was required to assess and determine the eligible annual expenditures for lease expenditures over a certain period of time. Instead, the expert assessed only certain invoices contested by the defendant. The court ruled that it was possible to perform a mathematical exercise to take the plaintiff`s claim and then deduct the amount that was deemed overcharged. However, his honour concluded that since the expert had not indicated whether the overcharged amounts included or excluded GST, it was not possible to solve this mathematical problem. Andrew Schriiffer appeared (without a guide) for two plaintiffs to review a receivership order. The plaintiffs successfully obtained orders to set aside the attachment order and also obtained an order from the requesting creditor to bear the costs of the receivership.

Mark Steele appeared on behalf of the respondents in connection with a request for disclosure of three documents made under section 223(1)(3) of the UC REGULATIONS. The applicant was successful in respect of two of the documents, but not in respect of the third document, which was a licence agreement between the parties. Philippa Ahern appeared for the plaintiff, who is a trustee of an unregistered managed investment system. The applicant successfully applied for approval of his remuneration under section 101 of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld). Philippa Ahern appeared for the plaintiff, who is a trustee of an unregistered managed investment system. The plaintiff obtained a direction under section 96 of the Trusts Act 1973 (Qld) that the plaintiff was entitled to pay amounts that he could not distribute to the Queensland Public Trustee at the time of the final settlement of the scheme. Liquidators also obtained orders under rule 60-20 of the Insolvency Practices Schedule approving their remuneration, including future remuneration. Melanie Hindman QC (as she was at the time) and Mark Steele appeared for the successful complainant. Tom Sullivan QC and Jason Mitchenson appeared for the respondent.

The appeal concerned whether a claim for payment issued by the Appellant under the Fairness in the Building Industry Act (Security of Payments), 2017 was invalid because it contained claims relating to two different construction contracts. Morrison J. (with whom Fraser J. and North J. had agreed) upheld the appeal, noting that the second alleged contract was in fact an amendment to the construction contract. In addition, his honour stated that even if the claim for payment contained a claim relating to a second construction contract, the claim for payment was valid since, prima facie, it concerned only one construction contract. Melanie Hindman QC (as she was at the time) and Andrew Schriiffer appeared for the successful respondent. The appeal concerned the interpretation of section 7 of the Commercial Arbitration Act 2013 (Qld) (Act) and whether a clause in a subcontract was an arbitration agreement within the meaning of the law. Andrew Schriiffer appeared for the plaintiff creditor who won his case to obtain a decision on the costs against the lawyers on the other side. The strategies and objectives, challenges and risks of the Law Practitioners` Admissions Council for 2019 to 2023 can be found in the company`s strategic plan, annual report and other documents. The Supreme Court has jurisdiction to admit lawyers to Queensland.

It is supported by the Council for the Admission of Legal Practitioners (LPAB), which issues recommendations on the suitability and suitability of candidates in the form of a certificate of conformity. Andrew Schriiffer appeared (not) before three of the fourteen respondents in three applications for interim measures heard jointly. The defendants obtained orders setting aside two paragraphs of the appeal on the ground that the pleas were attributable to a receiver under the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). The court also found that the case constituted an abuse of process and should be merged with another trial before the Queensland Supreme Court. Pursuant to subsection 477(2A) of the Corporations Act, the applicants obtained an order allowing them to obtain the consent of the court to set off the debts owed to the Corporation under the conditions set out in a settlement and release act. The plaintiffs also obtained orders under R. 90-15 of the Insolvency Practices Schedule that the liquidators had the right to complete the deed and to have the corporation close it; and that the liquidators had the right to make payments to the company`s creditors according to a method of distribution proposed by them. To comply with its legal obligations, the Commission has established a disclosure protocol that lists the information requested and disclosed under itR legislation. The Council also has a publication system that advises on information regularly made available to the public. The Court also dismissed the Respondent`s statement of dispute regarding the appellant`s alleged misleading and deceptive conduct. As a statutory body established under the Legal Profession Act 2007, the Council is responsible for meeting the various legal requirements necessary to perform its functions and fulfil its obligations to the profession and the public. Melanie Hindman QC (as she was at the time) appeared with Madeline Brennan QC and Samantha Amos for the respondent on the application for judicial review of assessments under the Mineral Resources Act, 1989 (Qld).

These applications for interim measures concerned contested amendments, requests for disclosure and requests for costs. The Council supports individuals seeking admission to the Queensland Bar. All applicants must apply to the Supreme Court of Queensland.