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’ - Power to waive under S.28(2) of the Lawyers Act - Substantial compliance in this application relates to a similar course of training for which the applicant has obtained a certificate - 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 the second 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. She possesses a degree of Bachelor of Laws from the University of Papua New Guinea. She also possesses a certification of qualification for admissions a lawyer in a foreign jurisdiction. She was admitted to practice as a Solicitor in the Supreme Court of Queensland, Australia. She has not and never did practise as lawyer in Australia which is a prescribed country for the purposes of the Lawyers Act.

The applicant made an earlier application for admission to practice as a lawyer on the same basis as this application. That application was heard 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 reliance upon my advice the applicant has sought and now obtained a sworn affidavit to support her renewed application for admission to practice as a lawyer. I have thought about this matter long and hard and I have decided 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 provided under S.25 of the Act is that:

(i) the applicant must have a degree of Bachelor of Law from the University of Papua New Guinea; and

(ii) the applicant must possess a certificate in the prescribed form signed by the 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) such other described academic or educational qualifications [S.25(2)(b)]; and

(ii) a certificate of admission to practice as a lawyer in a prescribed country [s.25(3)(b)]; and

(iii) a minimum three years post admission practice experience in a prescribed country [S.25(3)(b)].

The applicant is not seeking to be admitted under the second way. As I rule the first time S. 25 (3) (b) is intended for foreign lawyers who wish to get admitted here.

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

In relation to the second requirement she submits that she has completed a course at the Queensland University of Technology which is comparable or equivalent to the course offered at the Legal Training Institute. Mr Dixon Kombagle the Director of the Legal Training Institute has deposed to an affidavit which supports the applicants application. The applicant then seeks to rely on Section 28 (2) to waive the requirement of S. 25 (3) (a). Such waiver is sought because she has instead obtained a comparable or equivalent certificate from the Queensland University of Technology which is supported by affidavits of the Director of our own Legal Training Institute and the Director of Legal Practice in the Faculty of Law at the Queensland University of Technology. She submits she has substantially complied with the requirement of S. 25 (3) (a) in that she has completed a similar course and for which she has obtained a certificate. Citizen and foreign lawyers who have obtained their law 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 Lawyers Act gives the Court a very wide discretion to waive all or any of the requirements of S. 25. As I said earlier I have thought long and hard in relation to this application. I have taken into account what the Law Society had to say. I have also taken into account the benefits Papua New Guinean lawyers may have in achieving what this application has received. I have also taken into account the limitations at the Legal Training Institute.

I am of the view that although the applicant did not do the course at our own Legal Training Institute she has completed the course which is similar to our very own and in that regard has substantially complied with the requirements of Section 25 (3) (a) of the Lawyers Act. The consideration in this case in my view are substantially different from the cases previously decided on by the Court. The cases in point are; PNG Law Society v McEniery (1993) PNGLR 76; in the Application of Egerton MacPherson Robb, unreported National Court judgment N1332; and in Application of Tiffany Twivey unreported and unnumbered National Court 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 sought waiver 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. Taking into account all the considerations alluded to above I grant the orders sought in the notice of motion.

Accordingly requirements of S. 25 (3) (a) of the Lawyers Act are waived in so far as it applies to the applicant 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