Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback National Court of Papua New Guinea

Application of Tiffany Twivey and In the matter of the Lawyers Act 1986 and In the matter of the Lawyers Admission Rules 1990 [1997] PGNC 5; N1500 (6 February 1997)

Unreported National Court Decisions

N1500

PAPUA NEW GUINEA

[NATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE]

LA 37 OF 1996
THE APPLICATION OF TIFFANY TWIVEY
And:
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAWYERS ACT 1986
And:
IN THE MATTER OF THE LAWYERS ADMISSION RULES 1990

Waigani

Salika J
6 February 1997

LAWYERS - Lawyers Act 1986 - Requirements for Admission - Application for admission as a lawyer - Application to waive requirements of s. 25 (3) (b) because teaching law is practicing law - teaching law not same as practicing law.

Counsel:

Mr J Yagi for the Law Society

Mr K Kua for the Applicant

6 February 1997

SALIKA J: Thlicant has moved the Coue Court for orders that she be admitted to practice as a lawyer in Papua New Guinea. The applicant is aurer in r in law at the law Faculty at the University of Papua New Guinea. The applicants work ience ence details are that on leaving the University at the end of 1990 she completed a Graduate certificate in Legal Practice e University of Tasmania. In Au1991 she worked for ofor one year as an apprentice at e at Law with a firm of Lawyers Piggot, Wood and Baker in Tasmania. Durin1 and 1992 she also wlso worked as a College law tutor at Jane Franklin residential College at the University of Tasmania. In Jy 1993 she was contracntracted to work with Warner Shand Lawyers in Papua New Guinea. While awa admission in thin this country she also lectured part-time at the University in 1993. In June she commenced full full timloyment at the law Faculty, University of Papua New Guinea. She has nued t60; to0; to lecture at the Law Faculty. Ss been contractr a furtheurther three years from the 1st&#1st December 1996.&#During herg her time at the Law Faculty she has bn asst edif the Pthe Papua New Guinea Law Reports since 199e 1993 and has been Associate Dean (Academcademic) for the law Faculty since Novembe4.

The applicant wast was admitted as a Legal Practitioner to the Supreme Court of Tasmania on the 4th September 1992 and to the High Court of Australia on 14th September as a barrister and solicitor.

The Law Society of Papua New Guinea opposes this applicant for admission on the ground that the applicant has had no post admission experience in a prescribed country.

The applicant in seeking the orders for admission is further seeking orders to waive certain requirements under the lawyers Act.

The applicant relies on affidavits filed by Dr John Luluaki and herself and a letter from the Attorney General. Tw Society does not contesontest the academic qualifications of the applicant for she is academically qualified. The Societough ounsel Mr Y Mr Yagi however submits that the applicant should not be admitted to practpractice as a lawyer in Papua New Guinea fo reasons. The reasons are:

(2) ـ Absencesence of a certificate by the Attorney General under s. 25 (3) (d) that the applicant is a fit and proper person.

Mr Kua for the apnt arthat nce of the applicants work experiences nces as a lecturer in Law at the Law FaculFaculty ofty of the University of Papua New Guinea, her, one year apprenticeship with a law firm in Tasmania and her employment with Warner Shand Lawyers in Port Moresby are sufficient to satisfy the practice requirements under s. 25 (3) (b). In other words he submitted that teaching law at the University is “practising law.” Mr Kua further asked thatCthe Court exercise its discretion under s. 28 (2) of the A waive the requirement of s. 25 (3) (b).

Evidence bece before the court is that the applicant was admitted to practice law in nia and in the High Court ourt of Australia but never practiced law either in Tasmania or in the High Court of Australia. Her ement for a year serviserving an apprenticeship with a firm of lawyers was for the purposes of being admitted to practice. beinitted she came here.&ere. She drt time lecturing andg and then took up full time time lecturing. Up to now she would done two and half years of full time lecturing and one year of part time lecturing. 160; These instances to beto be her only work eences. Mr Kua submitted that the Lawyers Act does not define the word “practicectice” as used in s. 25 (3) (b).&#16 therefore submitted that the word “practice” a21; as used in s. 25 (3) (b) must also include teaching law. On that basisubmitted that that the applicant has substantially complied with the provision of s. 25 (3) (b) of the Act.

I with respeo not subscribe to that submission. The words: “the applicant has practised as d as a lawyer” in my view means that applicant has actually practiced law as opposed to teaching law. Practising Law is actually applying the law in a real lituation most often in a coua court of law. It involves counsel reseagching and arguing the law in open court on behalf of clien160; Teaching law is teaching theory of the law. Thes These are two rent thnt things. Teaching law view cannot nnot be ed with the practice of the the law, nor can it be a substitute for the practice of the Law. Moreover in this country all lawyers areired ve a practicing cing certificate to practice law. She; She has been issued sued a practicing certificate in this country. The no evidence that she eshe ever had a practicing certificate issued to her in Tasmania or Australia for that matter. erefonnot id that that shet she has practised as a lawyer while teaching law at the Law Faculty.ulty. S. ) (b) is specific in mwin mw that the applicant must have practised Law in a prescribed country. In that regard gard I find that the applicant has never&#practiced law either in Tasmania or the High Court of AustrAustralia and in Papua New Guinea. Thus hplication to the coue courtxercise its discretion to waive the practice requirement isnt is refused because she has not practised law in a prescribed country.&#She cannot succeed on the “substantial complianpliance&#8argumentument because she has not even partially complied with the requirements of s. 25 (3) (b). For those reasons I refuse to make orders in terms of the notice of motion.

Applin is dismissed. I awaI award costs t Law Soaw Society.

Lawyers for Law Society: Mr Joseph Yagi

Lawyers for ApplicFiocco Posman & Kua Lawa Lawyers