In the Matter of The Lawyers Act, and In the Mattter of an Application by Joyce Sylvia Kunjip for Admisssion as a Lawyer [1997] PGNC 90; N1595 (31 July 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1595

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

LA NO.2 OF 1997
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAWYERS ACT (CHAPTER 91)
AND
IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY JOYCE SYLVIA KUNJIP FOR ADMISSION AS A LAWYER

Waigani

Salika J
31 July 1997

LAWYERS - Lawyers Act 1986- Admission to practice - Requirements for admission - Citizen Lawyer - Application for admission as a lawyer - Application to waive requirements of S.25(3)(a) of a certificate in the form prescribed by the rules of court signed by the Director of the Papua New Guinea Legal Training Institute because of &;substantial compliance&#nce’ - Power to waive under S.28(2) of the Lawyers Act - Substantial compliance in this application relates to a similar course oining for which the applicant has obtained a certificate - te - Application distinguished from other applicants.

Counsel

Mr P Payne for the Applicant

Mr JYagi for the Respondent

31 July 1997

SALIKA J: This application is thend cond attempt by the applicant to be admitted to the practice as a lawyer in this country, pursuant to the provision of Section 26,25 and 28(2) of the Lawyers Act.

The applicant is a citizen of Papua New Guinea. Shsesses a degree of BacheBachelor of Laws from the University of Papua New Guinea. She also poss a certificatfication of qucation for admissions a lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction. She was add to practicacticactice as a Solicitor in the Supreme Courtueensland, Australia. She has not aner did practpractpractise as lawyer in Australia which is a prescribed country for the purpof the Lawyers Act.

>

The applicant made an earlier application for admission to practice as a lawyer on the same basis as this application. That applicatas heard by m by me and I refused the application and by way of advise referred the applicant to the Director of the Papua New Guinea Legal Training Institute for the purpose of obtaining an appropriate certificate. In reliupon my advice the the applicant has sought and now obtained a sworn affidavit to support her renewed application for admissionractice as a lawyer. I have thoabout this mattematter long and hard and I have decideecided to deal with it in the following manner.

I agree with the submission by the Law Society that there are two distinct ways by which an applicant can be admitted as a lawyer under S.25 of the Lawyers Act. The first way pro under S.er S.25 of the Act is that:

(i) ټ&#t60; ppe applicanticant must have a degree of Bachelor of Law from the University of Papua New Guinea; and

(ii);ټ&##160; the applicant must possess a certificate in the prescribed form signedigned by t by the Dihe Director of the Legal Training Institute.

The second way to get admitted as a lawyer under s. 25 is that the applicant must possess:

(i) ـ҈ s60; such otch other described academic or educational qualifications [S.25(2)(b)]; and

(ii) &&#160ertif of edmission toon to practice as a lawyer in a prescribed country [s.25(3)(5(3)(b)]; b)]; and

(iii) &#1 minihree post admission practice experience in a prescribed country [S.25(3)(b)3)(b)].

>

The applicant is not seeking to be add unde secay. As I rule the first time S. 25 (3) (b) is intended for foreigoreign lawn lawyers yers who wish to get admitted here.

The applicant wishes to get admitted under the provisions of S. 25 (3) (a). She has satisfied irst reqt requirement of obtaining a law degree from the University of Papua New Guinea. The Laiety has no argumentument over this aspect.

In relato the second requirement she submits that she has completedleted a course at the Queensland University of Technology which is comparar equivalent to the course urse offered at the Legal Training Institute. Mr Dixon Kombagle the tor ctor of the Legal Training Institute has deposed to an affidavit which supports the applicants application. The applicant teeks to relo rely on Sectio(2) to waive the requirement of S. 25 (3) (a). Such wuch waiver is s beca because she has instead obtained a comparable or equit certificate from the Queensland University of Technology logy which is supported by affidavits of the Director of our own Legal Tra Institute and the Directorector of Legal Practice in the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology. She submit has substantialntially complied with the requirement of S. 25 (3) (a) in that she has completed a similar course and for which as obtained a certificate. Citind foreign lawyers whos who have obtained their law deaw degrees from the University of Papua New Guinea and went to obtain the certificate referred to in S. 25 (3) (a) are admitted to practice law in that manner in this country.

The applicant here is the first person to come to court to apply for admission in this way. S. 28 (2) of the Lawyet gict gives the Court a very wide discretion to waive all or any of the requirements of S. 25. As I said earlier I have tt long and hard in relation to this application. I have taken into at what what the Lthe Law Society had to say. I have aaken into nt the bthe benefits Papua New Guinean lawyers may have in achieving what this apis application has received. I have taken accohe limi limi limitations at the Legal Training Institute.

I am of the view that that although the applicant did not do thrse at our own Legal Training Institute she has completed the course which is similar to outo our very own and in that regard has substantially complied with the requirements of Section 25 (3) (a) of the Lawyers Act. The coration in this case case in my view are substantially different from the cases previously decided on by the Court. The cases int are; PNG LawG Law SocietyEniery (1993) PNGLR 76; in the Application of Egerton MacPhMacPherson Robb, unreported National Court judgment N1332; and in Applicatf Tiffany Twivey unreported and unnumbered National Court jurt judgment dated the 6th of February 1997.

In those cases the applicants obtained their law degree from other countries and had some practical experience in either in prescribed or non prescribed countries and also in this country. Furthermore they sowaiver iver the practice requirements of S. 25 (3) (b) of the Act. In this case the applicant applies to waive the requirement of S. 25 (3) (a) of the Act. Tainto account all onsidersiderations alluded to abto above I grant the orders sought in the notice of motion.

Accordingly requirements of S. 25 (3) (a) ofLawyers Act are waived in so far as it applies to the appliapplicant pursuant to S. 28 (2) and the applicant is admitted to practice as a lawyer.

I award the costs of the motion to the applicant.

Lawyers for the applicant: Blake Dawson Waldron

Lawyers for the respondent: Joseph Yagi on instruction from the PNG Law Society