Ruling points to mistakes solicitor made in his migration agent practice
The New South Wales Supreme Court found that a man who had worked as a solicitor and migrant agent perpetuated the NSW Law Society’s finding that he was not a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate by denying his wrongdoing.
In Senanayake v Law Society of NSW [2026] NSWSC 790, the plaintiff became a solicitor in Sri Lanka in December 1996, gained admission as an NSW solicitor on 2 April 2004, and registered as a migration agent at the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) on 18 March 2010.
On 3 November 2016, before MARA, two complainants brought a complaint about the plaintiff. During its investigation, MARA found 10 protection visa applications with similar wording and expressed concerns about possibly “duplicated and template-based protection claims.”
MARA initiated its own complaint against the plaintiff on 2 June 2017 and cancelled his registration on 9 October 2017.
Before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT), the plaintiff requested a review. On 4 February 2020, the AAT ruled against him.
On 30 April 2020, before the Law Society of New South Wales, the plaintiff applied to renew his practising certificate for the 2020–21 practising year. On 26 November 2020, the law society dismissed the application.
On 2 July 2021, the plaintiff re-applied for a practising certificate for the next practising year. On 7 September 2021, the law society declined the application once more.
Most recently, on 1 April 2025, the plaintiff re-applied for a practising certificate for the 2025–26 practising year. On 23 July 2025, the law society denied the application for the ninth time.
On 17 August 2025, the plaintiff filed a summons. He sought a review of the law society’s most recent decision under s 100(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW), a declaration that he was a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate as a solicitor, and compensation.
The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales, the defendant in this case, opposed all the plaintiff’s requested orders.
The Supreme Court of New South Wales dismissed the summons filed on 17 August 2025 because it did not consider the plaintiff a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate. The court ordered him to pay the defendant’s costs of the proceedings.
Setting aside the MARA and AAT findings, the court acknowledged that the plaintiff appeared to have good character. The court accepted that he lost his registration for five years, a significant period for somebody whose occupation was his income source.
However, the court ruled that the law society correctly dealt with the applications, given that the plaintiff:
Given its findings, the court deemed it unnecessary to address the plaintiff’s compensation claim.
Enjoy this story? Read the latest litigation and dispute resolution news on the main page!
