Tribunal saw no reasonable likelihood of guilty finding for professional misconduct
The Tasmanian Supreme Court’s Full Court has dismissed an appeal of the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal’s decision that saw no reasonable likelihood that the respondent would be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
In Wang v Sheehy [2026] TASFC 1, the respondent represented the appellant in family law proceedings regarding property settlement. On 18 January 2022, before the Legal Profession Board of Tasmania, the appellant brought a complaint against the respondent regarding his representation.
The Board investigated under part 4.4 of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Tas). On 16 March 2023, after concluding its investigation, the Board dismissed the complaint upon seeing no reasonable likelihood that the respondent would be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
Before the Tribunal, the appellant applied to determine her complaint. On 7 August 2023, the Tribunal dismissed the application upon confirming the lack of a reasonable likelihood that the respondent would be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
Before the Tasmanian Supreme Court, the appellant sought to appeal the Tribunal decision. The issue was whether the Act permitted an appeal of a Tribunal decision to a Supreme Court judge, or whether the Tribunal was the furthest she could go. According to the appellant, s 484 of the Act allowed her to appeal to the Supreme Court.
On 19 November 2024, Brett J of the Supreme Court determined that the appellant was not entitled to pursue additional relief under s 458 of the Act and that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the proposed appeal under s 484 of the Act or otherwise. The appellant appealed.
The Full Court of the Supreme Court of Tasmania dismissed the appeal of Brett J’s decision, which lacked any errors. The Full Court agreed entirely with his decision and his reasons for reaching it.
The Full Court determined that it had no power to hear the appellant’s claim that the Tribunal erred in agreeing with the Board. The Full Court decided that the appellant took her complaint as far as she could under the Act.
According to the Full Court, the Act extended no right to appeal to the Supreme Court against the Tribunal’s dismissal of a s 458 complaint based on the lack of a reasonable likelihood that the lawyer would be found guilty of unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct.
Upon reading s 458, the Full Court ruled that the complainant could appeal to the Tribunal or to the Supreme Court, given that the Board dismissed a complaint against the lawyer on the aforementioned basis.
According to the Full Court, as the complainant decided to go to the Tribunal instead of the Supreme Court, she had no right to appeal the Tribunal decision to the Supreme Court.
