Case taken to appeal court after Legal Profession Admission Board denied attempts to readmit
In proceedings arising from a plaintiff’s attempts to gain readmission to the roll of legal practitioners, the New South Wales Supreme Court found that it would be unjust to order his requested production of documents at this point.
In December 2015, the NSW Supreme Court removed the plaintiff in Montenegro v Legal Profession Admission Board [2026] NSWSC 625 from its roll based on a decision declaring that he was not a person of good fame and character or a fit and proper person to remain on the roll.
The decision had a basis in the plaintiff’s record of criminal offences and failures to fully and frankly disclose that conduct to the Legal Profession Admission Board (LPAB), the Law Society of NSW, and the NSW Bar Association. He also lost his practising certificate.
Before the LPAB, the plaintiff applied for readmission in 2017 and again applied in 2022. The LPAB denied both applications.
In 2020, the plaintiff appealed the LPAB’s refusal to readmit him to legal practice, having applied under r 14 of the Legal Profession Uniform Admission Rules 2015 (NSW) for a compliance certificate under s 19 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW).
In August 2022, the plaintiff consented to the discontinuance of the proceedings on certain terms. Under the relevant order, the plaintiff agreed to pay the LPAB $35,000 in full and final satisfaction of its legal costs for the proceedings.
In 2025, the parties amended those orders with respect to costs. The plaintiff then filed multiple motions, listed for hearing or directions in May 2026. These included 13 March 2026 and 9 April 2026 motions for the production of the minutes of:
The plaintiff’s second challenge to the LPAB refusals was currently before the NSW Supreme Court’s Court of Appeal.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales declined to dismiss the production motion before the appeal’s determination. However, the NSW Supreme Court held that the hearing of the other motions should await the Court of Appeal’s determination of the plaintiff’s appeal.
The NSW Supreme Court accepted that the appeal court might adopt a different position in the event of a transfer of the proceedings to that court.
The NSW Supreme Court directed the parties to discuss the appropriate orders, including a cost order or an order on whether these proceedings should also be before the appeal court. The NSW Supreme Court asked the parties to file the proposed orders.
The NSW Supreme Court acknowledged that the registrar incorrectly found that it could not entertain the production motion before the hearing and determination of the plaintiff’s reopening application.
However, the NSW Supreme Court refused to order the requested production of documents at this point. In making this decision, the NSW Supreme Court took the following into account:
The NSW Supreme Court noted that the appeal court could consider the approach in Re Lenehan (1948) 77 CLR 403; [1948] HCA 45, as well as the plaintiff’s bias complaint.
