Exercise 026 | Law

Exercise 026

Denial of Natural Justice:Stone v Hiley, Stewart and Graves (in their capacity as members of the Ethics Committee) and the Law Society of the Northern Territory [1992] NTSC 52 (29 July 1992)

click here to download this document
click here (AustLII link) to view the case

Easy questions

  1. What is the citation for this case?
  2. What type of case was it - civil, criminal, appellate, first instance?
  3. Were there previous proceedings?
  4. In what court was the case held? Where does that court fit in the hierarchy?
  5. What facts gave rise to the dispute?
  6. Define the following terms (using your legal dictionary):
    1. natural justice
    2. professional misconduct
    3. certiorari
    4. mandamus
    5. quo warranto
  7. What was the outcome of the case?
  8. Could there be an appeal from this decision?

More difficult questions

  1. What was the argument of counsel for the plaintiff?
  2. What remedy did the plaintiff seek?
  3. What was the legal principle in the case?
  4. What was the substance of the complaint of the plaintiff to the Ethics Committee?
  5. What was the judge's opinion regarding the plaintiff's reasons for taking the file to the meeting?
  6. What was the Committee's conclusion and reasons regarding the actions of the plaintiff?
  7. What aspect of the decision was delegated by the Society?
  8. What were the options open to the Society in relation to penalty and which course was chosen?
  9. Why did the judge decide natural justice was not rendered in only one aspect of this case?
  10. Is this decision binding on other courts?

Complex questions

  1. Explain the judge's statement, "The flexible rules of natural justice must bend to the will of the legislature," in relation to this case.
  2. What approach to reasoning did the judge adopt (precedential, formalist, purposive, etc)? Identify parts of his judgment where particular types of reasoning occur.
  3. Do you agree with the reasoning of the judge?
  4. Does this case follow precedent?
  5. What proposition (if any) does this case stand for?