Bradshaw v Bar Association of Queensland: Case Summary Analysis

This case study summarizes the Supreme Court of Queensland case of Bradshaw v. Bar Association of Queensland. The issue revolves around the Bar Association's refusal to renew Mr. Bradshaw's practicing certificate due to his convictions under the Taxation Administration Act 1953 for failing to file tax returns. The case's procedural history involves appeals and hearings where Mr. Bradshaw contested the decision. The court considered Mr. Bradshaw's history of non-compliance, lack of transparency, and previous disciplinary findings. The court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Bar Association's decision, reasoning that Mr. Bradshaw's actions and lack of cooperation raised concerns about his fitness to practice law. The ratio of the case clarifies the standards for granting practicing certificates and the importance of ethical conduct for legal professionals. The summary highlights key aspects of the case, including the facts, the arguments, the court's decision, and the implications of the judgment.

RUNNING HEAD: CASE SUMMARY
Bradshaw v Bar Association of Queensland
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author Note

1
CASE SUMMARY
Issue:
The issue regarding the provided case is why the renewal certificate has not been issued to Mr
Bradshaw.
Procedural History:
The case was first appealed in the Legal Practice Tribunal where the contention by Mr
Bradsahw was given on 10th July, 2008. Without any proper appreciation from the Tribunal by
the Supreme Court Judges the rejection to grant local practicing certificate came to stand
agaianst him.
Facts:
Mr Bradshaw was being convicted in the court of the magistrate for seven offences charged
under Section 8C(1) of the Taxation Administration Act 1953 as he failed to file the return of
income tax for the financial year1 1999 to 2005. The court ordered him to lodge the tax return in
the duration of 3 months, and he was charged $5000 as a fine for not returning the tax return. His
tax return was prepared by his accountants, but it was not filed, and it was known to him that his
tax returns were not lodged properly for consecutive years. He did not found necessary to lodge
the tax return. He did not comply with the notice from taxation office regarding the lodging of
the tax. By the method of summoning and complaint, the taxation office prosecuted Mr
Bradshaw for failing in returning of tax. He notified2 the Bar Association concerning the letter
received against his convictions as he was obliged to perform the task under section 68(1)(a) of
the Legal Profession Act 2007. This is because was asked to establish a show-cause notice for
his convictions regarding the failure in filing the tax return. Under section 68(1)(b) of the Legal
1 Affidavit of Daniel Leonard O’Connor filed 1 December 2008 in BS 10774 of 2008 (“O’Connor 1”), ex DLO-12 (pp.36-47).
2 O’Connor 1, ex DLO-1 (p.1).

2
CASE SUMMARY
Profession Act he was asked to explain with a written statement3 to Bar Association for
notwithstanding the convictions. The Bar Association stated a letter as he was unable to provide
sufficient content for providing a certificate of practising. He was asked for few documents by
the Bar Association stating for satisfactory grounds for the issuance of the certificate4. As the
show cause event had taken place and the not a satisfactory response has not been received from
him for renewal of practising certificate. In reply to Mr O Connors letter, he provided some
notice of assessment that was not correctly defined as return of tax. The respondent contended
that he did have any intention to lodge tax as he does not owe any tax5.
Decision:
Application for time postponement within which the petition approved.
Reasoning:
The court held the decision because of the following grounds:
Mr Bradshaw seems to oppose that the illegitimate expansion of Bar Association and at the same
time enlargement of it inquiry matters that are irrelevant which was found incorrect by the court.
As it was being submitted by the Bar Association Mr Bradshaw was in a position to show cause,
and it was essential for him to understand that he was a proper person and physically fit for
holding a certificate to conduct legal practice. It was required by the court to gain all relevant
information for the advancement of consideration of the application. It was appeared to be
correct, but it was not satisfactory to the court that Mr Bradshaw has developed any reason for
3 O’Connor 1, para 5.
4 O’Connor 1, ex DLO-3 (p.3).
5 The respondent contended that it was notable that in this proceeding Mr Bradshaw still appeared not to regard his obligation to lodge tax returns
as serious and drew attention to alleged statements that the process is obsolete; see amended application, ground 4(a) and Mr Bradshaw’s
submissions, 3rd (para 6, last sentence), 6th page (para 3, third sentence).

3
CASE SUMMARY
conducting the review of the accused of considering the application to grant a certificate for
practising. The court found it correct for the application to be dismissed. The court proposed the
parties for hearing for delivering the reasons. Mr Bradshaw has not appeared, and the Bar
Association requested the application cost. Accordingly the court dismissed the application with
cost.
Ratio:
I n t h e p r o v i d e d c a s e B r a d s h a w v B a r A s s o c i a t i o n o f Q u e e n s l a n d [ 2 0 1 2 ]
Q C A 3 2 2 i t h a s b e e n r e f u s e d f o r g r a n t i n g t h e l o c a l p r a c t i c i n g c e r t i f i c a t e .

4
CASE SUMMARY
Reference:
Affidavit of Daniel Leonard O’Connor filed 1 December 2008 in BS 10774 of 2008 (“O’Connor
1”), ex DLO-12 (pp.36-47).

5
CASE SUMMARY
O’Connor 1, ex DLO-1 (p.1).
O’Connor 1, para 5.
O’Connor 1, ex DLO-3 (p.3).

6
CASE SUMMARY