Underlying Legal Profession Admission Board proceeding sought readmission to practice
The New South Wales Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal has adjourned the hearing of a motion for leave to issue a subpoena requiring the former president of the Law Society of New South Wales to attend and provide evidence in substantive proceedings.
In Montenegro v Legal Profession Admission Board [2026] NSWCA 114, the underlying proceedings arose from the applicant’s attempts to gain readmission to the roll of legal practitioners.
On 1 June 2026, the applicant emailed the registrar a copy of a motion for leave under r 33.2 and/or r 7.3(1)(a) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) to issue a subpoena to Jennifer Ball to give evidence in the substantive proceedings.
On 3 June 2026, the registrar issued timetabling orders that listed a directions hearing in the substantive proceedings for 11 August 2026.
The registrar instructed the applicant to file and serve any further amended summons by 17 June 2026 and directed the parties to file any additional evidence by 24 June 2026.
On 9 June 2026, the applicant originally filed his notice of motion for leave under the UCPR. The referrals judge listed this original motion for hearing on 15 June 2026.
On 11 June 2026, the applicant submitted an amended notice of motion to the registrar for filing.
On 12 June 2026, the respondent Legal Profession Admission Board asked the registrar to vacate the motion hearing on the following grounds:
By an oral application, the respondent asked the judge to adjourn the hearing of the amended motion.
First, Acting Justice John Griffiths of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales granted leave for the applicant to rely on the amended notice of motion dated 11 June 2026, which included four prayers for relief.
Griffiths pointed out that the respondent Legal Profession Admission Board did not oppose the issuance of leave.
Second, Griffiths vacated the hearing of the 9 June 2026 notice of motion, which the 11 June 2026 amended notice of motion had superseded.
Third, Griffiths listed the amended notice of motion for hearing on 29 June 2026 before the referrals judge.
Agreeing with the respondent, Griffiths accepted that the applicant’s filing of his proposed further amended summons and all his evidence and the respondent’s filing of all its evidence by the timetable deadlines should precede the determination of the questions of:
Griffiths acknowledged that the respondent’s evidence might address the matters that caused the applicant to request permission to issue the subpoena. Griffiths added that deferring the hearing and determination of the amended motion would not prejudice the parties.
Fourth, Griffiths otherwise confirmed the registrar’s 3 June 2026 orders.
Fifth, Griffiths reserved the issue of the costs of the adjournment application.
