SIVANPATHAKUMAR and LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2026] WASAT 75

[2026] WASAT 75 Page 1 JURISDICTION : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL ACT : LEGAL PROFESSION UNIFORM LAW (WA) CITATION : SIVANPATHAKUMAR and LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD [2026] WASAT 75 MEMBER : PRESIDENT GLANCY DR S WILLEY, SENIOR MEMBER MR R POVEY, MEMBER HEARD : 2 JUNE 2026 DELIVERED : 26 JUNE 2026 FILE NO/S : VR 118 of 2025 BETWEEN : JEYAKODY SIVANPATHAKUMAR Applicant AND LEGAL PRACTICE BOARD Respondent Catchwords: Vocational regulation - Legal profession - Renewal of Australian practising certificate - Review of decision to refuse application to renew Australian practising certificate - Whether applicant is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate - Meaning of fit and proper - Where applicant obstructed external intervener appointed to manage practice - Meaning of obstruction - Failure to comply with notices issued by Legal Practice Board - Breach of undertaking - Deficiencies in trust accounting - Tribunal not satisfied that applicant is fit and proper -- 1 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 2 Legislation: Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA), (repealed) Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (WA), r 13(1), r 17(1), r 42, r 44, r 45, r 48 Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic), s 82(1)(d), s 100 Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA), s 3(b), s 3(c), s 6, s 44(1), s 45(2), s 45(3), s 45(4), s 95, s 95(1)(b), s 95(2), s 100(1), s 100(1)(a), s 100(3), s 100(7), s 138, s 147, s 148, s 155(1), s 174, s 266(2), s 276, s 282, ch 6, pt 6.2, s 326(d)(i), s 327(2), s 334(2), s 335, s 335(1), s 364, s 371, s 371(3) Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), Sch 1 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA), s 20 Legal Profession Uniform Law Australian Solicitors' Conduct Rules 2015 (WA) State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 9(b), s 17(1), s 27(1), s 27(2), s 29(1), s 29(3), s 29(5) Result: Decision affirmed Category: B Representation: Counsel: Applicant : In Person Respondent : Mr C Beetham Solicitors: Applicant : N/A Respondent : Legal Practice Board Case(s) referred to in decision(s): A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2004] HCA 1; (2004) 216 CLR 253 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 Council of New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCA 339; (2021) 106 NSWLR 383 -- 2 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 3 Council of the Law Society (NSW) v Lee [2024] NSWCATOD 108 Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2016] NSWSC 1617; (2016) 339 ALR 580 Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Figwer [2013] SASCFC 115 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Lawson [2021] WASAT 152 (S) Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Lourey [2019] WASAT 41 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Metaxas [2021] WASAT 82 (S) Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Staffa [2025] WASC 6 Ludlow v Legal Practice Board [2026] WASCA 79 Marcevski and Victoria Legal Services Board (Legal Practice) (No 2) [2025] VCAT 1008 MN Legal and Management Consultants v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1410 Ord Irrigation Cooperative Ltd v Department of Water [2018] WASCA 83; (2018) 232 LGERA 331 Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409 Victorian Legal Services Board v Thexton [2021] VSC 357 X v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 63; (1999) 200 CLR 177 -- 3 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 4 REASONS FOR DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL: Introduction 1 On 30 May 2025, Mr Sivanpathakumar (also referred to as the Practitioner or the Applicant) applied to the Legal Practice Board (Board) for the renewal of his Australian practising certificate (practising certificate) to take effect from 1 July 2025 for the year ending 30 June 2026. On 13 November 2025, the Board decided to refuse the application on the basis that it considered that he was not a fit and proper person to hold the practising certificate (Decision). The Board notified the Practitioner that it had made the Decision on 17 November 2025 and of the reasons for the Decision (Reasons for Decision). 2 On 12 December 2025 the Practitioner applied to the Tribunal for a review of the Decision pursuant to s 100(1)(a) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (WA) (Uniform Law). The issue to be determined 3 The ultimate issue for determination in this review is whether the Applicant has satisfied us that he is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. Outcome 4 For the reasons set out below, we have concluded that the correct and preferable decision, as at the date of the decision on the review, is to affirm the Decision because the Applicant has not satisfied us that he is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. Relevant statutory provisions Uniform Law 5 The Board is the 'local regulatory authority for the purposes of renewal of Australian practising certificates in Western Australia.1 6 By s 44(1) of the Uniform Law, the Board may, on application, grant or renew an Australian practising certificate in respect of a financial year. 1 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2022 (WA), s 20. -- 4 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 5 7 By r 17(1) of the Legal Profession Uniform General Rules 2015 (WA) (Uniform Rules) a practising certificate is in force: (a) if granted, from the commencement date specified in it until the end of the following 30 June; or (b) if renewed, from the date of its renewal until the end of the following 30 June, unless it is surrendered, suspended or cancelled. 8 By s 45(2) of the Uniform Law, and subject to s 45(4), the Board must not grant or renew an Australian practising certificate, if it considers that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold the certificate. 9 By s 45(3) of the Uniform Law, in considering whether a person is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate, the Board is required to have regard to particular matters. Relevant to this case, to matters set out in r 13(1) of the Uniform Rules. Those matters include, but are not limited to the following: (a) whether the applicant is of good fame and character; (b) whether the applicant has engaged in legal practice when not permitted to do so; (c) whether the applicant is the subject of an unresolved complaint or investigation; (d) whether the applicant is currently unable to carry out the inherent requirements of practice as an Australian legal practitioner; (e) whether the applicant has contravened an Australian law relating to the practice of the profession; and (f) whether a manager has been appointed in relation to any legal practice engaged in by the applicant. 10 Section 100(1) of the Uniform Law entitles an applicant for an Australian practising certificate to seek a review of a decision of the Board to refuse to grant or renew their practising certificate. -- 5 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 6 11 Section 100(3) empowers the Tribunal to make any order it considers appropriate on appeal or review under s 100, including an order directing the Board to grant, or to refuse to grant, an application for a practising certificate. 12 Section 100(7) of the Uniform Law provides that in any review under s 100(1): (a) the onus of establishing that a person is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate is on the person asserting that fact; and (b) it is to be presumed in the absence of evidence to the contrary that any statement of facts in the reasons of the designated local regulatory authority for the decision concerned is a correct statement of the facts in the matter. 13 Section 335 of the Uniform Law provides as follow: (1) After service on a law practice of a notice of the appointment of a manager for the law practice and until the appointment is terminated, a legal practitioner associate of the practice who is specified or referred to in the notice must not participate in the affairs of the practice except under the direct supervision of the manager. Penalty: 100 penalty units. (2) … (3) After service on a person of a notice of the appointment of a manager for a law practice and until the appointment is terminated, the person must not - (a) deal with any of the law practice's trust money; or (b) … (c) authorise the withdrawal or transfer of funds from a trust account of the law practice. Penalty: 100 penalty units. (4) … … -- 6 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 7 (6) Subsection (3) does not apply to a legal practitioner associate referred to in subsection (1), an ADI or the manager or receiver for the law practice. State Administrative Tribunal Act 14 An application for review under s 100 of the Uniform Law comes within the Tribunal's review jurisdiction.2 15 A review is conducted as a hearing de novo and is not confined to matters which were before the original decision-maker. The Tribunal may have regard to new material whether or not it existed at the time that the decision on review was made.3 16 The purpose of a review is to produce the correct and preferable decision at the time of the decision upon the review.4 17 When dealing with matters in its review jurisdiction, the Tribunal has the functions and discretions which correspond to those exercisable by the original decision-maker.5 18 The Tribunal may affirm, vary or set aside the decision on review. When the Tribunal sets aside a decision, it may substitute its own decision or send the matter back to the decision-maker for reconsideration in accordance with any directions or recommendations it considers appropriate. In any case it may make any orders that it considers appropriate.6 19 The Tribunal's decision upon the review: (a) is to be regarded as, and given effect to as, a decision of the decision-maker; and (b) unless the enabling Act states otherwise or the Tribunal orders otherwise, is to be regarded as having effect, or having had effect, from the time when the decision reviewed would have, or would have had, effect.7 2 State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA), s 17(1) (SAT Act). 3 SAT Act, s 27(1). 4 SAT Act, s 27(2). 5 SAT Act, s 29(1). 6 SAT Act, s 29(3). 7 SAT Act, s 29(5). -- 7 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 8 Onus and standard of proof 20 Ordinarily in review jurisdiction no party bears an onus,8 although there may be an evidentiary onus. However, as we have already identified, the onus of proving on review that the applicant is a fit and proper person is on the applicant for review. Additionally, we are to regard the facts set out in the Board's Decision as correct unless there is evidence to the contrary. Where there is evidence to the contrary, we must determine the fact in the usual way. The applicable standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. Matters considered upon the review 21 The Board's case was a documentary one. The Board filed no witness statements and called no oral evidence. 22 The Applicant's written submissions contained both submissions and evidence. The Applicant also gave a considerable amount of evidence from the bar table in the course of making submissions. For that reason, and taking account of the Tribunal's objectives in s 9(b) of the SAT Act, towards the end of the hearing we asked Mr Sivanpathakumar to make an affirmation or oath that the factual evidence he gave in his written submissions and in the course of the hearing was true and correct to the best of his knowledge and recollection. The Board did not object to us proceeding in that way. Mr Sivanpathakumar elected to take an oath and then confirmed on his oath that the factual matters to which he had referred in his written submissions and about which he had spoken in the course of the hearing were true. The Board was then given an opportunity to cross- examine Mr Sivanpathakumar but declined do so. Mr Sivanpathakumar's presentation at the hearing 23 As will be apparent from what we have already said above, the Applicant represented himself. At the commencement of the hearing Mr Sivanpathakumar informed the Tribunal that he had developed difficulties with his hearing and would not be able to hear what was being said. The Tribunal provided him with a hearing loop, but he did not consider that it improved things for him. While we were adjourned to allow the hearing loop to be tested, Mr Sivanpathakumar informed the Tribunal's staff that he wished to withdraw his application, however, when we returned to the hearing room he told us that he 8 Ord Irrigation Cooperative Ltd v Department of Water [2018] WASCA 83; (2018) 232 LGERA 331 [115] - [116], [122] - [125]. -- 8 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 9 wished for us to proceed on the documents and that he 'had not expected this matter to come this far'. We indicated that we would have difficulty determining the matter on the documents, as we had issues we wished to raise with the parties, and Mr Sivanpathakumar indicated he was willing to participate in the hearing. 24 It appeared to us that Mr Sivanpathakumar was able to hear well enough when we kept our voices up but resorted to claiming difficulties with his hearing when pressed to answer questions he did not wish to, or did not know how to, answer. His claims to have not been able to hear tended to follow long pauses. On occasions Mr Sivanpathakumar was able to interrupt the respondent's counsel to tell us that he thought the respondent's explanation of particular facts was wrong, suggesting that he could hear certain aspects of the proceeding. 25 It became evident to us during the hearing that Mr Sivanpathakumar nevertheless struggled to follow some of the proceeding. He was unable to identify which document was the respondent's written submissions when he was referred to it and had difficulty finding paragraphs in his own and in the respondent's submissions when he was referred to them. At times, he appeared to be having trouble with attention and with comprehension and was frequently breathless. He was also extremely emotional, perhaps understandably given the issue before us concerns whether he will be able to work as he wishes to do. He attended without any support. We were concerned for his welfare. 26 Give that if the matter is not resolved by 30 June 2026 the Applicant will have to reapply for a practising certificate and this review might then be rendered pointless,9 we determined that it was in the Applicant's interests that we press on with the hearing and determination of the review doing the best we could. 27 We were satisfied that, despite our concerns, Mr Sivanpathakumar had had an opportunity to obtain counsel, had participated in a mediation, had made written submissions, which included factual matters to which we have regard, and was able to provide us with his account of events and to make oral submissions. 9 Ludlow v Legal Practice Board [2026] WASCA 79 [22] - [24]. -- 9 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 10 Our approach 28 As we set out below, the Board determined that the Applicant was not fit and proper to hold a practising certificate for several reasons taken together. At the hearing the Board offered several other bases upon which they said we could also find that the Applicant is not fit and proper. At the hearing, the Board's counsel accepted that some of the matters would not, on their own, be reasons for concluding that the Applicant was not fit and proper. 29 Given the urgency of the resolution of the matter we have identified the most significant matters asserted as reasons for such a finding and, having come to the conclusion that the remaining assertions would not change the outcome of the application one way or another, we have not determined whether we were satisfied that those other assertions had been established. Meaning of 'fit and proper' 30 The expression 'fit and proper' is not defined in the Uniform Law. Nor was it defined in the Legal Profession Act 2008 (WA) pursuant to which the Western Australian legal profession was previously regulated, and which contained the same requirement for the grant and/or renewal of a practising certificate. However, it is a term that has long been used in matters concerning vocational regulation across many disciplines. Its meaning is derived from its context, which includes a requirement that the applicant has an understanding of the responsibilities conferred by the grant of the particular authority sought and the ability to discharge them.10 31 For legal practitioners, the meaning of fit and proper includes a requirement that the applicant will uphold the high standards of honesty and integrity expected in all aspects relevant to legal practice.11 32 In Re Davis12 Dixon J said that fitness to practice relevantly requires that a practitioner is able to command the confidence of their clients, fellow practitioners and judges. In Council of New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym)13 the Court of Appeal, when describing the meaning of 'fitness to practice' in the context of disciplinary proceedings which had been brought against the 10 Australian Broadcasting Tribunal v Bond (1990) 170 CLR 321 349 (Mason CJ). 11 Hilton v Legal Profession Admission Board [2016] NSWSC 1617; (2016) 339 ALR 580 [110]. 12 Re Davis (1947) 75 CLR 409, 420 (Dixon J). 13 Council of New South Wales Bar Association v EFA (a pseudonym) [2021] NSWCA 339; (2021) 106 NSWLR 383 [169]. -- 10 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 11 practitioner said that the question focussed not only on the objective circumstances of the conduct in question but also on the personal qualities of the lawyer in question, and other circumstances that bear upon the conduct. It said 'unfitness is ultimately a finding about character, although conduct plays an important role in the evaluation of character'.14 33 The Court of Appeal said that a practitioner's conduct outside of the practice as a lawyer may manifest the presence or absence of qualities which are incompatible with or essential for a legal practitioner. 34 Some unfitness to practice may be transitory, arising for example from a failure to adhere to the requirements of the profession where, given time, insight and education, the practitioner may demonstrate an ability and willingness to adhere to them in the future. Some is of a more permanent nature, such as where an individual is found to lack the personal qualities of honesty and integrity which are required of members of the profession. 35 Practitioners who have been found to have engaged in professional misconduct which involves dishonesty are often found to be unfit to practice.15 36 Assessing whether someone is a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate is to be evaluated in the context of the seriousness of the failings which are said to be evidence of impropriety and a lack of such fitness. 37 Legal Practitioners have an obligation, perhaps greater than that on other citizens, to comply with the requirements of the law.16 38 As the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia stated in Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Figwer,17 it is of the utmost 14 Re Davis [169]. The facts of that case involved conduct that took place at a dinner which the practitioner acknowledged was in connection with his practice of law, and occurred while he was intoxicated. In that case though it found that the conduct was poorly judged, vulgar and inappropriate, but isolated and out of character and amounted only to unsatisfactory professional conduct rather than professional misconduct. The case was primarily significant for the Court of Appeal's finding that under the Uniform Law the text for professional misconduct was whether the practitioner was fit and proper; and did not include the common law text which included conduct which would be regarded as disgraceful and dishonourable by professional colleagues of good repute and competence. 15 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Lawson [2021] WASAT 152 (S) [30], citing Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Metaxas [2021] WASAT 82 (S) [15]; Legal Services and Complaints Committee and Staffa [2025] WASC 6. 16 Uniform Rules, r 4.1.5. 17 Legal Practitioners Conduct Board v Figwer [2013] SASCFC 115, [11] (Figwer). -- 11 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 12 importance that public confidence in the legal profession be maintained. Legal practitioners play an integral part in the administration of justice. The obligations which accompany a practitioner's position are commensurate with the responsibility involved. The duties of a legal practitioner include a duty to uphold the law, a duty to the court, a duty to clients and a more general duty to members of the public. The court and the public demand high standards from practitioners. This is reflected in the legislative processes that regulate the admission of practitioners and govern their conduct. 39 As that Court also observed,18 in considering whether to strike a practitioner from the roll of practitioners maintained by the Supreme Court of South Australia, a decision which necessitated consideration of whether the practitioner was 'fit and proper' to remain a member of the profession, consideration had to be given to what the High Court had described as 'the whole position'.19 Agreed facts 40 The factual matters set out at [41] - [54] were not in issue and we find them proven to the requisite standard. 41 The Applicant was first admitted to practice in Western Australia on 2 March 1989.20 42 In February 1994, the Applicant registered 'Jeyakody Sivanpathakumar' trading as Sivan Legal (the Practice). He was the sole legal practitioner of the Practice and there were no employees of the Practice. Until 2009, the Practice was operated under his personal name. From 2009, the Practice was operated under the name VSP Family Trust. The Applicant was one of the trustees of the trust.21 43 The Applicant held a practising certificate until the Decision was made. 44 The Applicant has not previously been the subject of any disciplinary complaints/findings. 18 Figwer [12]. 19 A Solicitor v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2004] HCA 1; (2004) 216 CLR 253 at 266. 20 Exhibit 1.19, page 583. 21 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 1. -- 12 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 13 45 On 21 February 2025, the Applicant was admitted to Fremantle Hospital with respiratory sepsis.22 46 On 4 March 2025, the Board received two complaints about the Applicant's conduct. They were complaints made by clients to the effect that they had been trying to contact him for a few weeks, that the Applicant held money on trust for them and that they needed the money dealt with but that the Applicant was uncontactable.23 47 The Board then made unsuccessful attempts to contact the Applicant. 48 On 6 March Mr Colella, on behalf of the Board, sent an email to the Applicant informing him that if the Board did not hear from the Applicant, it was possible that it might externally intervene in the Practice at the Applicant's cost, although it did not wish to do so unless it was absolutely necessary. 49 On 8 March 2025 the Board received an email from the Applicant's son informing them that he was aware the Board had been endeavouring to contact his father. The email then stated:24 My father is currently in hospital dealing with a respiratory illness. We have been dealing with a lot at the moment and have not had a chance to tell everyone what is going on. My father will take care of any business once he is fit and healthy again. 50 On 13 March 2025 the Board's Professional Affairs Committee resolved to appoint a manager to the Practice. The manager who was appointed was Mr Hoe, of Provident Lawyers (Manager). 51 The Applicant was informed of the appointment of the Manager by notice dated 13 March 2025.25 52 The Applicant was discharged from hospital on 20 April 2025.26 53 The Manager is still appointed to the Practice.27 22 Exhibit 1.2, page 123. 23 Exhibit 1.19, page 583. 24 Exhibit 1.19, page 583. 25 Exhibit 1.19. 26 Exhibit 1.2, page 123. 27 Respondent's Outline of Submissions, page 3. -- 13 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 14 54 The Manager has provided 13 reports to the Board in relation to the Management of the Practice.28 The Board's Reasons for Decision and the additional bases upon which it says the Tribunal should Affirm the decision 55 In its Reasons for Decision the Board concluded that the Applicant was not a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate for several reasons. They were that he had:29 1. consistently and deliberately obstructed the Manager and had refused to comply with simple requests to provide information regarding the practice; 2. continued to liaise with clients without informing the Manager and despite the fact that the Manager had asked him to refrain from doing so; 3. wasted a considerable amount of the Manager's time; 4. breached an undertaking given to the Board which was to the effect that he would cooperate with and not obstruct the Manager and would cease to purport to act on behalf of the practice (Undertaking). 5. been charging clients a 'fixed' disbursement fee of $300 for search fees associated with the Officer of State Revenue, the Water Corporation and local governments when, in reality, actual expenses incurred for each client would differ; and 6. continued to refuse to provide the Board with a report from his general practitioner regarding his current health as required by a notice issued to the Applicant by the Board pursuant to s 95 of the Uniform Law (Section 95 Notice). 56 On review, the Board submits that in addition to these matters that informed its Decision, the following matters are also reasons for concluding that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate:30 1. the Manager has issued his ninth, tenth, eleventh, twelfth and thirteenth reports to the Board, the substance of which is to the 28 Respondent's Outline of Submissions, page 7. 29 Exhibit 1.23, page 1751. 30 Respondent's Outline of Submissions, page 7. -- 14 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 15 effect that the Applicant continues to obstruct the management of the practice; 2. the Applicant has failed to comply with a compulsory notice issued to him by the Board pursuant to s 371 of the Uniform Law requiring him to answer certain questions on statutory declaration (Section 371 Notice); 3. a trust investigation undertaken by the Board's Senior Auditor revealed, by a report dated 16 September 2025, that there were: (a) 10 instances of trust ledger deficiencies totalling $6,120.35 in alleged breach of s 148 of the Uniform Law; (b) 26 instances where it is alleged that the Applicant has taken funds from one trust account ledger to use in another, in breach of s 138 of the Uniform Law; (c) 20 withdrawals of legal costs and disbursements that are alleged to have not complied with s 138 of the Uniform Law; and (d) 14 transactions recorded in alleged contravention of r 42 of the Uniform Rules; and 4. the Manager was re-appointed for a further term pursuant to s 334(2) of the Uniform Law because of, amongst other things, the trust issues mentioned in [56(3)] above, and because the Applicant had caused the practice to be de-registered for GST, backdated to 1 July 2025, and had, to date, refused to comply with the Manager's direction to reregister the practice for GST. Practitioner's position 57 The Applicant accepts that he: 1. has not complied with the Section 95 Notice;31 2. has not complied with the Section 371 Notice;32 3. charged clients a flat fee of $300 for disbursements for searches irrespective of the actual costs incurred;33 and 31 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 12. 32 ts 2 June 2026, page 76. -- 15 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 16 4. has not reregistered the Practice for GST as directed by the Manager.34 58 Despite those admissions, the Applicant seeks to explain why he has not done those things. 59 The Applicant also accepts that the Board's Senior Auditor's report concludes that the irregularities in his trust accounts set out at [56(3)] were identified during the audit of his trust accounts. He says, however, that if he were provided with access to his records, and time, he may be able to check those findings for himself and that he has not been able to verify those irregularities for himself. 60 The Applicant's submissions are primarily concerned with: (a) explaining why it is that he thinks that the appointment of the Manager to the Practice was unnecessary; (b) why the continued appointment upon his discharge from hospital was unnecessary; (c) why the Manager's conduct was unreasonable; (d) why the Board's investigation into his trust accounts was unreasonable; and (e) why he should not be responsible for asking his general practitioner to provide the medical report, rather than engaging with the obligation, cast upon him by s 100(7) of the Uniform Law, that he lead evidence to contradict any facts sets out in the Reasons for Decision which he says are wrong, and, generally, to satisfy us that the correct and preferable decision on review is to renew his Australian practising certificate. Resolution 61 We must, because of s 100(7) of the Uniform Law, accept as correct the facts as set out in any statement of fact in the Reasons for Decision unless there is evidence to the contrary. Identifying the facts was more difficult than it perhaps should have been because the Reasons for Decision does not contain an express 'statement of facts'. Rather, there are facts asserted at various parts of the Reasons for 33 ts 2 June 2026, page 83. 34 ts 2 June 2026, pages 77 - 78. -- 16 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 17 Decision. Further, in the Reasons for Decision, statements made by the Manager about the Applicant's conduct are frequently identified and relied upon by the Board but are not expressly found to be factually correct. That is, the Reasons for Decision do not clearly assert that the Board found those statements to be true. However, in an overall sense, it is abundantly clear from the ultimate conclusions of fact reached by the Board, for example that the Practitioner obstructed the Manager, that the Board must have found those statements to be true. Therefore, we have proceeded on the basis that all of the matters which were asserted by the Manager to be facts were found by the Board to be facts. Accordingly, we have taken them to be correct pursuant to s 100(7) unless there was evidence to the contrary given by the Applicant. Obstructing the Manager 62 In order to consider whether the Applicant obstructed the Manager in his management of the Practice it is useful to first identify the purpose of external intervention under the Uniform Law and the meaning of the word 'obstruct'. 63 The objects of the Uniform Law are to promote the administration of justice and an efficient and effective legal profession by, among other things, ensuring that lawyers maintain high professional standards in the provision of legal services and, in particular, enhancing the protection of clients of law practices and the protection of the public generally.35 64 External intervention in a legal practice is provided for in Chapter 6 of the Uniform Law. Part 6.2 deals with the initiation of external intervention. Pursuant to s 326(d)(i), external intervention may take place in relation to a law practice where, relevantly, the Board forms a belief on reasonable grounds that the law practice is not dealing adequately with trust money or trust property or is not properly attending to the affairs of the law practice. External intervention can take the form of the appointment of a manager, a supervisor or a receiver.36 The term 'external intervenor' is defined in s 6 of the Uniform Law to mean 'a supervisor, manager or receiver under Chapter 6'. 65 Section 364 of the Uniform Law provides: 35 Uniform Law, s 3(b) and s 3(c). 36 Uniform Law, s 327(2). -- 17 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 18 A person must not, without reasonable excuse, obstruct an external intervenor exercising a function under this Law. Civil penalty: 50 penalty units 66 The expression 'obstruct' is itself defined in s 6 of the Uniform Law as follows: obstruct includes hinder, delay, resist and attempt to obstruct. 67 It is to be noted that the definition in s 6 is inclusive rather than exhaustive. 68 In Victorian Legal Service Board v Thexton,37 a practitioner who had paid to have the locks changed at the premises from which a practice to which a manager had been appointed was found to have been in contempt.38 That conduct was found to have obstructed the manager in the management of the Practice. 69 In Council of the Law Society (NSW) v Lee39 the New South Wales Civil and Administrative Tribunal found that a practitioner had obstructed the manager appointed to manage the relevant practice by failing to cooperate with the manager by failing to provide client files, failing to provide copies of office account statements when asked, delaying removing funds from the law practice account when asked to do so by manager, and by failing to assist the manager to locate missing files and contracts. The Tribunal found that the practitioner's conduct as identified above constituted a breach of s 364 of the Uniform Law.40 70 There are two places in the Reasons for Decision where the Board makes a finding that the Applicant has obstructed the Manager. The ultimate conclusions are at paragraphs 120 and 129. At paragraph 120 of the Reasons for Decision, under the heading 'Your conduct - Consideration' the Board said: 120. Since the appointment of the Manager, you have continued to obstruct the Manager in carrying out his role. Your obstruction of the Manager was not only contrary to the law, from 28 July 2025 when you gave the Undertaking, it was contrary to the Undertaking. 37 Victorian Legal Services Board v Thexton [2021] VSC 357 (Thexton). 38 Thexton [93] - [94], [102] - [103]. 39 Council of the Law Society (NSW) v Lee [2024] NSWCATOD 108 (Lee). 40 Lee, [73]. -- 18 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 19 71 At para 129 under the heading 'Conclusion' the Board said (among other things): On the available evidence, it is the Committee's view that: a. you have consistently and deliberately obstructed the Manager and have refused to comply with simple request to provide information regarding the Practice. 72 Although not expressed as a statement of fact or a finding of fact, those conclusions must necessarily be understood to be statements of fact (and law). 73 The primary facts which were accepted by the Board as the basis upon which it made, as the ultimate finding of fact on this issue, the statements that the Applicant had obstructed the Manager, are found earlier in the Reasons for Decision. For the most part the Board recited, in the Reasons for Decision, the contents of the Manager's reports in which the Manager stated that the Applicant was obstructing him in the management of the Practice.41 Although the Board does not expressly say so, the fact that the Board ultimately concludes that the Applicant has obstructed the Manager must, by inference, mean that the Board accepted each of the matters set out in the Reasons for Decision as a fact. 74 For the most part, the Applicant's evidence was not directed to disputing any particular fact or facts set out in the Reasons for Decision concerning obstruction. Rather, he made general statements that revealed that he disputed the Board's conclusion that he had obstructed the Manager drawn from the facts. 75 Where the Applicant offered an explanation for not providing information that had been requested of him, we have dealt with that explanation as evidence which could be said to be contrary to the fact as to non-compliance asserted by the Board, and explain why we have rejected the Applicant's evidence and find the fact asserted by the Board as to that issue having been made out. 76 Accordingly, we regard each of the facts, including the statements made by the Manager recorded in the Reasons for Decision (for the reasons we have set out at [61]) as factually correct. 41 Exhibit 1.23, pages 1746 - 1747. -- 19 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 20 77 As we have identified, there were several matters that were said to amount to obstruction of the Manager by the Applicant. In the interest of the efficient resolution of this matter we have dealt only with the finding that the Applicant obstructed the Manager by failing to comply or respond to requests for: 1. information about the Practice's client matters; 2. access to the Practice's general account; 3. copies of correspondence related to client maters which went to two specific email accounts; and 4. the Applicant's cancelling of the internet access. Finding of facts relating to the conclusion regarding obstruction from the time of appointment of the Manager until the Decision was made 78 From the unchallenged statements of fact set out in the Reasons for Decision we make the findings of fact set out at [79] - [90].42 79 On 18 March 2025, having been appointed by the Board, the Manager sent the Applicant a letter which included a detailed request for documentation and access to the Practice's accounts. When no information was forthcoming by 10 April 2025, the Manager emailed the Applicant and attached a copy of the 18 March 2025 letter, requested again that he provide the information identified in that letter and drew to the Applicant's attention s 335(1) of the Uniform Law and the requirement that he not participate in the affairs of the Practice except under the direct supervision of the Manager. 80 Neither the information nor access to the accounts had been provided by 7 April 2025 when the Manager emailed the Board informing them that Mr Sivanpathakumar had informed him, in the course of a telephone discussion, that it would not be necessary to provide him with the information sought and that he intended to contact the Board about ending the management of the Practice. 81 The information had still not been provided by 23 April 2025 when the Board sent an email to the Applicant, informing him that the Manager had informed the Board that the information had not been provided, and that Manager had said that the Applicant's failure to do 42 Exhibit 1.23, pages 1710 - 1751. -- 20 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 21 so was obstructing the Manager's ability to carry out his responsibilities as Manager. 82 The information had still not been provided by 5 May 2025 when the Manager reported to the Board, in his second report, that despite several requests of the Applicant for control of the Practice's trust accounts, banks statements, updates and information for client matters, access to the Practice's client information and LEAP system it had still not been provided to him. The Manager reported that the Applicant's refusal to comply with the request appeared to be deliberate obstruction of his access. 83 By 3 June 2025, when the Manager provided his third report to the Board the position was: 1. that he had obtained partial access to the Practice accounts and record since 12 May 2025, but that the Applicant had still not provided the full access and control that was necessary for him to properly manage the Practice; 2. on 11 May 2025, without the Manager's approval the Applicant cancelled the Practice's internet access; and 3. a significant amount of time had been taken attempting to manage the Practice in light of the Applicant's lack of cooperation, and that progress had only been made since partial access had been provided to the Practice accounts on 12 May 2025. 84 On 13 June 2025, the Applicant sent an email to the Manager in which he stated: (a) that he would not agree to providing the Manager with full access to, and control of, the Practice general account because, among other things, since the day of the Manager's appointment he had been entirely managing the administration of the Practice; and (b) that he would be happy to grant the Manager complete control of, and access to, the general account once certain matters had been finalised. 85 By 2 July 2025 when the Manager's fourth report was provided to the Board, access to client matters and the Practice general account and -- 21 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 22 access to client contact details which had been sought by the Manager had still not been provided to him by the Applicant. 86 From about 20 June 2025, the Applicant had been interfering with the trust audit of the Practice's trust account by purporting to direct the auditor that he complete the audit without any interference from any third party (a reference to the Manager) and threatened to terminate the auditor's engagement if the audit was not completed by 30 June 2025. His interference in the audit continued despite repeated written directions to cease having been given to him by the Manager on dates including 20, 22 and 30 June 2025. 87 On 28 July 2025 the Applicant gave an undertaking to the Board that he would: 1. As soon as possible, provide the Manager: a. sole administrator access to the Practice's computer systems and electronic storage drives including sole administrator access to the following accounts: i. [email protected]; and ii. [email protected] b. sole administrator access the Practice's LEAP account, PEXA account and 'Revenue online' account (including Multi-factor Authentication applications); c. sole control and compete access to bank accounts held in the name of Sivan Legal including details that would permit the Manager to transact using those accounts; d. a complete and current list of Sivan Legal's current client matter with open offers or deadlines, including any property settlement dates; e. a copy of all correspondence on client matters which had been sent or received form the personal email address of the Applicant ([email protected]; [email protected]) since the appointment of the Manager. 2. cease corresponding or purporting to act on behalf of Sivan Legal without the prior and specific written consent of the Manager; and -- 22 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 23 3. not obstruct the Manager in the exercise of his functions under the Uniform law. 88 By the time the Manager's fifth report was provided to the Board on 5 August 2025, more than one week after the Undertaking had been given to the Board, the Manager had still not been provided with access to the Practice's general account, the PEXA multi-factor authentication application had not been provided and nor had the Manager received from the Applicant a complete list of the complete and current Practice matters with open offers or deadlines, including settlement dates and had not been provided with copies of correspondence related to client matters which had been sent or received from either of the two email addresses referred to in 1(e) of the Undertaking. 89 On 3 September 2025, the Manager had still not received the list of complete and current Practice matters. 90 By 4 September 2025, when the Manager provided his sixth report to the Board, the Applicant had still not provided a complete and current list of the Practice's client matters and had not provided him with any correspondence on client matters to and from the two email addresses referred to in para 1(e) of the Undertaking. That continued to be the case on 9 September 2025, when the Manager again emailed the Applicant seeking information and reminding him that he had undertaken to provide such information in his undertaking.43 91 It is convenient next to set out a summary of Mr Sivanpathakumar's evidence about his conduct and our findings in relation to it as it concerns the issue of whether he had obstructed the Manager. 92 Mr Sivanpathakumar's evidence is that at the time he fell ill there were no urgent client matters. We accept that unchallenged evidence and so find. 93 He said that upon falling ill, the Board mistakenly formed the view that the Practice's trust account held in excess of $400,000 when in fact the amount held was around $88,000.44 We accept that his trust account was not holding $400,000 at the time of the Manager's appointment. 43 Exhibit 1.23, page 1742. 44 Indeed, the First Manager's Report indicated that the funds in trust were $88,596.86 as at 31 March 2025; see Exhibit 1.1, page 3. -- 23 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 24 94 He said that the Board assumed that he had been misappropriating client funds and appointed a manager to the Practice. We accept that this is the Applicant's genuinely held view. However, there is no reasonable basis for that view given the statement of facts identify that the Manager was appointed because clients had complained to the Board that they required access to funds held in the Practice's trust account and that they had been unable to contact Mr Sivanpathakumar and that that explanation had been conveyed to the Applicant.45 95 Mr Sivanpathakumar's evidence was that when he was discharged from hospital, he was declared fit to resume working as a lawyer. We find that at the time of his discharge the Applicant had a medical certificate dated 20 April 2025 which stated that he was fit to resume work as a lawyer.46 96 His evidence was that he understood that the Manager had been appointed to:47 (a) deal promptly with client matters; (b) attend to time sensitive settlements; and (c) deal with trust money. 97 The Applicant said that the Manager had informed him that as he himself was a sole practitioner, he did not have time to supervise the Applicant's legal practice. Accordingly, the Manager instructed him not to take on any new matters for the Practice. The Applicant said that this meant the Practice was no longer a legal practice. 98 The Applicant said he did not participate in the affairs of the Practice other than to take steps to transfer matters to other firms. In light of the Manager's records quoted in the Reasons for Decision, that indicate that the Applicant had, on several occasions, made statements to the contrary, which the Applicant did not deny, we do not accept that evidence. By way of example, on 13 June 2025 he sent an email to the Manager in which he said, among other things:48 Since the day you were appointed Manager I have been entirely managing the Administration of the Practice. I just wanted to let you 45 Exhibit 1.23, page 1716. 46 Exhibit 1.2, page 122. 47 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 5. 48 Exhibit 1.23, pages 1723 - 1724. -- 24 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 25 know that so far, you have only finalised two files over the last two to three months. I must complete the GST and tax returns immediately after the end of the financial year. So I need to access the General Account for this purpose. I am happy to grant you complete control and access to the General Account once you finalise all of those 41 files before 30 June 2025. 99 By way of further example, by letter dated 24 July 2025, also quoted in the Reasons for Decision, the Applicant said 'on occasion, [he had] been compelled to act in certain matters to protect the interest of [his] clients'49 which is inconsistent with his evidence that he did not participate in the affairs of the Practice. 100 The Applicant gave evidence that because the Manager had delayed finalising the funds held on trust, in the period between May 2025 and June 2025 he prepared the final trust statements, invoices and payment directions for work that he had completed before the Manager's appointment.50 101 He said that he did not refuse to hand over information for the management of the Practice. He said that he had orally offered to take steps to provide complete control of the accounts to the Manager, but that the Manager never followed up on that offer.51 Mr Sivanpathakumar was not cross-examined about that statement. Even if we accept that evidence (about which we have some doubt because the Manager's reports were very thorough as to the communications he had had from the Applicant and would likely have included reference to such a statement having been made if indeed it had been), on the basis of the facts in the Reasons for Decision which we are to regard as correct, and to which we have already referred, we have no difficulty in finding that the Applicant did not in fact provide the information or control which had been sought by the Manager. 102 Mr Sivanpathakumar also gave evidence that he did not fail to provide a list of clients to the Manager as he had been requested to do. His evidence was that, as at July 2025, there were no active files and only two inactive files and so there were no clients of the firm.52 Even accepting the evidence that the Practice had no matters requiring 49 Exhibit 1.23, page 1729. 50 ts 2 June 2026, pages 56 - 57. 51 ts 2 June 2026, pages 60 - 62. 52 Exhibit 2.8, page 284. -- 25 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 26 any legal work to be undertaken, it does not address the fact that he did not ever provide that explanation to the Manager, or provide a list of the two inactive client matters. Further, it is inconsistent with his own statement in the email of 13 June 2025 that he required the Manager to finalise 41 files before 30 June 2025.53 Conclusion as to obstruction prior to the date of the Decision 103 We do not accept the Applicant's submission that his conduct cannot properly be regarded as obstructing the Manager. Rather, even having regard to the seriousness of such a finding and that we should only make such a finding on cogent and compelling evidence, we are positively satisfied on the facts as we have found them, and we find, that the Applicant did deliberately obstruct the Manager's management of his practice up until the Decision was made. 104 The Manager had been appointed to manage the affairs of the Practice. He could hardly do so without knowing who the clients of the Practice were and without access to and control of the Practice's managements software and bank accounts. The failure of the Applicant to make those things available to him and to provide him with the information about the Practice's clients, and cancelling the Practice's internet access, did undoubtedly delay his progress in dealing with the affairs of the Practice and hindered his ability to effectively manage the Practice. 105 We are satisfied and find that the Applicant's conduct, as found, did obstruct the Manager in the management of the Practice. 106 The seriousness of obstruction of a Manager is evident from the fact that it is an offence to do so punishable by 50 penalty units. Breach of Undertaking given to the Board 107 We have already found at [87] that the Applicant gave an Undertaking to the Board on 28 July 2025 and identified the terms of the Undertaking. 108 The Applicant says that he gave the Undertaking under duress at a time when he was unwell and under pressure and, therefore, that the Undertaking was not valid, and any breach of it is therefore not to be 53 Exhibit 1.19, page 752. -- 26 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 27 taken into account in determining whether he is a fit and proper person to hold a practising certificate.54 109 The Applicant also says that he gave the Undertaking under threat of an injunction being sought if he did not. 110 He also says he gave it in reliance upon a statement by Mr Hall that if he signed the Undertaking then the Manager would submit his final report and steps could be taken towards termination of the Manager's appointment.55 111 The Applicant says that he cannot respond to an unparticularised assertion that he breached the Undertaking unless the Board and the Manager identify the specific client, matter and file.56 112 In the absence of evidence from the Applicant that he did not breach the Undertaking, in conducting the review we are required to regard the facts as set out in the Reasons for Decision as correct. One of those facts is that he breached the Undertaking. 113 Even without reliance on s 100(7) of the Uniform Law, and leaving aside the allegation of a breach of the Undertaking by continuing to correspond and purporting to act on behalf of the Practice without the prior and specific consent of the Manager, about which the Applicant says he cannot respond without particulars, we are satisfied that he breached the Undertaking for the following reasons. 114 Given that we have found that aspects of the Applicant's conduct after 28 July 2025 amounted to obstruction of the Manager, it necessarily follows that we also find that by that conduct he breached the term of the Undertaking by which he undertook that he would not obstruct the Manager in the exercise of his legal functions under the Uniform Law. 115 Given our finding that the Applicant's obstruction of the Manager included failing to provide the Manager with control of and access to the Practice's general account, we are also satisfied and find that the Applicant breached the Undertaking that he would, as soon as practicable after 28 July 2025, provide the Manager with complete control of and access to the Practice's general account. 54 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 18. 55 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 18. 56 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 18. -- 27 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 28 116 In our view, irrespective of whether the Applicant is correct that the Undertaking was given because felt he had no option but to accede to the Board's request that he give it, unilaterally acting in breach of it is not conduct which is appropriate for a legal practitioner. Undertakings are solemn promises to act in a particular way. A breach of an undertaking given by a legal practitioner is a very serious matter. Legal Practitioners are required to be trustworthy, honest and true to their word. If the Applicant was concerned about the validity of the Undertaking, he should taken steps to have its validity properly considered and determined or to be released from it. 117 The seriousness with which a practitioner's breach of an Undertaking is viewed is apparent from the recent case of Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Lourey,57 where the Tribunal held that the practitioner's breach of his undertaking without a reasonable excuse amounted to professional misconduct because it was conduct which fell short by a substantial degree of the standard of professional conduct observed and approved by members of the legal profession of good repute and competence, and would reasonably be regarded as disgraceful or dishonourable to practitioners of good repute and competence'.58 Refusal to comply with Section 95 Notice 118 On 13 June 2025, the Board issued the Applicant a notice under s 95(1)(b) of the Uniform Law requiring him to be examined by Dr M Selvarajah (nominated medical practitioner) and to require the nominated medical practitioner, on or before 26 June 2025, to provide a report to the Board setting out certain identified information relating to the Applicant's condition, treatment, compliance with any treatment regime, and an opinion as to whether the condition could affect his ability to attend to the duties of an Australian legal practitioner who is a sole principal of a law practice, and whether he could perform the inherent requirements of such a practitioner.59 119 The Reasons for Decision state that at that time of the Decision, the Applicant had continued to refuse to provide the report regarding 57 Legal Profession Complaints Committee and Lourey [2019] WASAT 41 (Lourey). Although that decision was set aside on appeal the Tribunal's findings in relation to the issue of breach of undertaking and its statements as to how a breach was to be regarded was not criticised by the Court of Appeal. 58 Lourey, [322]. 59 An earlier notice had been issued to the Applicant pursuant to s 95 of the Uniform Law. The Section 95 Notice was subsequently issued because, it seems, that the Board accepted that the initial notice was defective in that it did not nominate the medical practitioner from whom the report was to be obtained in accordance with the requirements of s 95. -- 28 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 29 his current health as required by the Section 95 Notice.60 At the hearing the Applicant accepted that it still had not been provided.61 We are satisfied and find that at the time of the hearing the Applicant had not complied with the Section 95 Notice. 120 The Applicant says that after receiving the Section 95 Notice, he corresponded with the Board seeking to know whether the nominated medical practitioner had agreed to provide the report before he would approach him for the report.62 121 The Applicant says that he has a medical report dated 20 April 2025 from the Department of Health which sets out the reasons for his admission to hospital and which states that at that time he was fit to return to work as a lawyer. We accept that a medical report of 20 April 2025 did state that he was fit to resume his work as a lawyer.63 122 The Applicant also says that it is not appropriate that the responsibility for a failure of the nominated medical practitioner to provide a report should fall upon the practitioner.64 However, in our view, that statement is merely boxing at shadows because he does not say, and there is no evidence to establish, that he had ever approached the nominated medical practitioner and that the nominated medical practitioner had refused to provide the report. 123 Given that Board asserts as a fact that the Applicant had not, at the time of its Decision, provided the Board with a report regarding his current health as required by the Section 95 Notice,65 and that the Applicant admits he has not complied with the Section 95 Notice, we are satisfied and find that fact is correct. 124 The seriousness with which such a failure is viewed is apparent from the fact that s 95(2) of the Uniform Law provides that it is a ground for making an adverse decision in relation to the action being taken by the Board; being in this case the renewal of his practising certificate. 60 Exhibit 1.23, page 1751. 61 ts 2 June 2026, pages 83 - 85. 62 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 11. 63 Exhibit 1.2, page 122. 64 ts 2 June 2026, page 84. 65 Exhibit 1.23, page 1751. -- 29 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 30 The trust account deficiencies 125 In its submissions the Board says that an additional reason why we can find that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate is because of the concerns identified as a result of an investigation into his trust accounts.66 126 The Board submits that a report dated report dated 16 September 2025 by the Board's Senior Auditor following a trust investigation undertaken by the Senior Auditor, (Trust Investigation Report)67 revealed that there were: (i) 10 instances of trust ledger deficiencies totalling $6,120.35 in alleged breaches of s 148 of the Uniform Law; (ii) 26 instances where it is alleged that the applicant has taken funds from one trust account ledger to use in another, in alleged breach of s 138 of the Uniform Law; (iii) 20 withdrawals of legal costs and disbursements were identified that are alleged to have not complied with s 138 of the Uniform Law; and (iv) 14 transactions were recorded in alleged contravention of r 42 of the Uniform Rules. 127 The Trust Investigation Report is Exhibit 1.19. We are satisfied and find that it does identify the issues referred to at [126] above. 66 Further, although the Board did not say so in its submission the matters identified at [126(i) - (iv)] above were identified as facts in the Reasons for Decision. So too was the fact that the Trust Investigation Report also identified the following additional facts: (i) There were 22 withdrawals of disbursements totalling $6, 695.16 that did not have supporting documents to evidence payments or were not for disbursements at all; (ii) The Practice did not maintain trust records in compliance with s 147 of the Uniform Law, including: a. 90 breaches of r 44 of the Uniform Rules (Trust account payment cash book); b. 121 breaches of r 45 of the Uniform Rules (Trust account payment cash book); (iii) 12 client matters did not comply with costs disclosure requirements set out in s 174 of the Uniform Law; and (iv) None of the five trust reconciliations reviewed were prepared in accordance with r 48 of the Uniform Rules. Additionally, at page 1749 in Exhibit 1.23 of the Reasons for Decision, the Board stated that the Trust Investigation Report has identified 'widespread contraventions of the applicable laws relating to trust accounts'. As the Board did not submit that we should deal with the trust account matters under s 100(7) we have not done so. 67 Exhibit 1.19, pages 914 - 921. -- 30 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 31 128 The conclusion expressed by the Senior Auditor in the Trust Investigation Report was as follows:68 [t]he quantity and nature of the issues and legislative breaches identified from the external investigation, particularly trust account deficiencies and unauthorised withdrawals from trust, constitute high impact behaviour. 129 The Applicant was provided with an opportunity to respond to the trust issues identified in the Trust Investigation Report. As we have already found, he was issued with a Section 371 Notice which required him to provide certain information about his accounts on statutory declaration.69 We have also found that he did not provide any meaningful response on statutory declaration, or otherwise, by the date it was due or at all. 130 In his submissions, the Applicant says that he accepts the Trust Investigation Report has identified certain issues with his trust accounting.70 However, he did not adduce any evidence, expert or otherwise, to demonstrate that any or all of the matters identified did not occur. Instead, he submitted that that he could not properly respond to the concerns raised about his trust accounts because he had not been provided with access to all of the materials required by him to do so. 131 The Applicant has, however, provided and relied upon the reports of the Practice's external examiners for each year in the period from 1 April 2019 to 31 March 2025.71 He does so because he says they 'do not identify any substantial trust account irregularity or matters of serious concern'.72 It was not clear whether that submission was intended to be a statement that the Senior Auditor was wrong or whether it was intended to be a statement that he did not know what he was doing was wrong because the issues had not been pointed out to him earlier. 132 In his written submissions, the Applicant says that the trust account breaches are minor and technical or administrative breaches rather than matters which involve dishonesty, misappropriation, deficiency in trust funds or improper use of client money. He says that 'at all material times client funds were preserved and were not used for 68 Exhibit 1.19, page 921. 69 Exhibit 1.19, page 602. 70 Applicant's Outline of Submission, page 25. 71 Exhibit 2.17, pages 457 - 501. 72 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 26. -- 31 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 32 any unauthorised or improper purpose'.73 It seems to us to be apparent from that submission that the Applicant accepts that his trust accounting was deficient in some respects. 133 While we are unable to conclude whether the trust accounting failures identified by the Senior Auditor in the Trust Investigation Report actually occurred, we are satisfied and find that the matters at [126(i) - (iv)] were identified by the Senior Auditor, that the Senior Auditor regarded them as 'high impact behaviour' and that the Applicant accepts that some deficiencies in his trust accounting occurred. We are also satisfied and find that despite being given an opportunity to respond to the concerns, the Applicant has failed to do so. 134 It is also important to identify that, to the extent the reference to the external examiner's reports was intended to be a statement that problems with his trust accounting had not been identified by the external evidence, we reject that evidence. These reports do not establish that there were no issues identified by the external examiner. Rather, the reports establish that the Practice received qualified reports for the years ending 31 March 2023 and 31 March 2025. The Investigation Programme, prepared by the Board's Senior Auditor, confirms that '[the Practice] had been investigated by the Board twice since 2020, with issues noted on both occasions'.74 135 The 2023 investigation was conducted following a qualified external examination report for the year ended 31 March 2023 and identified five withdrawals of legal fees contrary to r 42 of the Uniform Rules as well as numerous delays in transaction recording and preparation of trust reconciliations.75 136 We must consider whether, with these concerns about his trust accounting identified, and as yet not refuted by the Applicant with any expert or other evidence or explanation, the Applicant is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. Failure to comply with s 371 Notice 137 The Board says that we can find that the Applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate for reasons which include that he has failed to comply with a compulsory notice 73 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 26. 74 Exhibit 1.19, page 932. 75 Exhibit 1.19, page 932. -- 32 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 33 issued by the Board pursuant to s 371 of the Uniform Law which required him to answer certain questions on statutory declaration. 138 This is an allegation about which we must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities because it was not a fact set out in the Reasons for Decision. 139 We are satisfied and find that: 1. On 7 October 2025, at its own initiative, the Board initiated a complaint against the Applicant pursuant to s 266(2) of the Uniform Law.76 2. Having conducted a preliminary assessment of the complaint, pursuant to s 276 of the Uniform Law the Board decided it was appropriate to investigate the matter pursuant to s 282 of the Uniform Law.77 3. The scope of the investigation included, but was not limited to, the issue of whether the Applicant had engaged in unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct by failing to handle trust monies in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Law.78 4. By letter dated 17 October 2025, the Board issued the Section 371 Notice to the Applicant.79 5. In the Section 371 Notice the Board alleged that the Applicant had failed to handle trust monies in accordance with the requirements of the Uniform Law and sought his responses to a series of questions by 31 October 2025.80 6. The Section 371 Notice required that the Applicant's response be verified by statutory declaration.81 7. The Board granted the Applicant an extension of time until 14 November 2025 to comply with the Section 371 Notice.82 76 Exhibit 1.23, page 1744. 77 Exhibit 1.23, page 1744. 78 Exhibit 1.23, page 1745. 79 Exhibit 1.19, pages 602 - 605. 80 Exhibit 1.19 pages 602 - 605. 81 Exhibit 1.19, page 602. 82 Exhibit 1.22, page 1691. -- 33 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 34 8. The Applicant provided his response on 16 November 2025 although the response itself was dated 14 November 2025.83 9. The Applicant's response was not verified by statutory declaration. 10. The Applicant's response of 16 November 2025 did not respond to the questions asked of him in the Section 371 Notice. Instead, he queried the period of the trust investigation saying it had considered a much longer period of time that he had been told it would.84 The Applicant also stated that he had not been able to access bank statements the Practice LEAP account (practice management software) and laptop and that accessing those things via the Manager would cause him to incur further costs. He indicates that he would 'provide additional information in due course'.85 11. On 21 November 2025 the Board's investigator emailed the Applicant confirming that the 'Board's trust team are still in the process of collating the documents for you to address the trust questions in the [Section] 371 Notice'. That email also stated that the response of 16 November did 'not address the questions asked by the [Section] 371 Notice and is not on statutory declaration as required by [the Notice]'. She then stated that the Board would allow the Applicant until 17 December 2025 to provide a proper response.86 12. The Board extended the time it had given the Applicant to properly respond to the Section 371 Notice until 31 January 2026 because, on 12 January 2026, the Board provided the Applicant with the bundle of documents relevant to the trust issue.87 14. On 17 December 2025 the Applicant twice emailed the Board in relation to the Section 371 Notice. In the first email he informed the Board that he would reply to the Section 371 Notice by 31 January 2026.88 In the second email he stated that in order to comply with the Section 371 Notice he required 83 Exhibit 1.27, page 1761. 84 Exhibit 1.22, pages 1707 - 1708. 85 Exhibit 1.22, page 1708. 86 Exhibit 1.27, page 1761. 87 Exhibit 1.35, page 1802. 88 Exhibit 1.35, page 1804. -- 34 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 35 access to the Practice laptop, trust account, LEAP, PEXA and Revenue Online.89 15. By email of 18 January 2026 the Board's Principal Lawyer advised the Applicant that because his desire to access material of the Practice had been raised some months ago and the Manager had been willing to facilitate access, that the Board would not extend time for compliance with the Section 371 Notice further unless exceptional circumstances existed. It also informed him that if he failed to comply with the Section 371 Notice by 31 January 2026 he may be criminally prosecuted or, alternatively, his failure to do so may be added as an issue to the current investigation.90 16. On 4 February 2026, the Board's Investigator wrote to the Applicant advising him that it had not received a response on statutory declaration addressing the specific questions identified in the Section 371 Notice.91 140 The Applicant did not lead any evidence to establish that he had in fact complied with the Section 371 Notice by 31 January 2026 or at all. Indeed, he accepted at the hearing that he had still not done so at that time. 141 We are therefore satisfied and find that the Applicant did not provide a response to the Section 371 Notice on statutory declaration by 31 January 2026 and had not done so as at the date of the hearing of the review. 142 The seriousness of a failure to comply with a notice issued under s 371 of the Uniform Law is apparent from the fact that such a failure is, by s 371(3), made an offence.92 89 Exhibit 1.35, page 1804. 90 Exhibit 1.34, page 1794. 91 Exhibit 1.38, page 1818. 92 The penalty for which is 50 penalty units: Uniform Law, s 371(3). Currently a penalty unit is worth $203.51: Uniform Law, s 6; Victoria, Government Gazette, No S 245 (22 May 2025). -- 35 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 36 The Manager was re-appointed for a further term pursuant to s 334(2) of the Uniform Law because, amongst other things, of the trust issues, and because the Applicant had caused the Practice to be de-registered for GST, backdated to 1 July 2025, and has, to date, refused to comply with the Manager's direction to re-register the Practice for GST 143 Again, this is a matter which the Respondent submits, together with others, justifies a finding that the Applicant has not satisfied us that he is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate but was not a matter relied upon in the Applicant's Reasons for Decision. Accordingly, we must be satisfied that the allegations have been proven to the requisite standard. 144 In the Manager's email to the Applicant dated 9 March 2026,93 the Manager explained that it had come to his attention that the Practice had been deregistered for GST as from 1 July 2025. He stated: In light of this recent knowledge, I am concerned that the Practice has issued invoices to clients after 1 July 2025 (as you are also aware) charging GST for the services which it had rendered. If when GST deregistration is effective from 1 July 2025, the clients would have been charged GST by the Practice when the practice was not entitled to charge for GST. This is likely to be a trust irregularity that will need to be reported where the funds were amounts held on trust for clients and the overcharged GST amounts may need to be returned to clients. Alternatively, if the GST deregistration was 'backdated' to 1 July 2025 in say December 2025 when the ABN records were updated, then GST would have been correctly charged and the Practice entity would need to correct the effective date of the GST deregistration. In light of the above, can you please confirm when you attended to the deregistration of the Practice's GST registration and whether the deregistration was then backdated to 1 July 2025? … 145 At the hearing on 2 June 2026, the Applicant accepted, and accordingly we are satisfied and find, that he caused the Practice to be de-registered for GST and that, despite having been requested and directed by the Manager to re-register the Practice for GST he had not done so.94 We do not accept the Applicant's evidence that he would 93 Exhibit 1.12, page 499. 94 ts 78 - 79, 2 June 2026. -- 36 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 37 have done so had the Manager explained the legal basis for this direction. This is because the Manager clearly set out the basis for his request and direction in his email to the Applicant on 23 and 31 March 2026.95 146 We were told by the Board, without demurrer by the Applicant, and we accept and find that registration for GST is not an action which can be taken by the Manager on behalf of the Practice or the Applicant and that it requires the Applicant to take steps to bring about the reregistration. Accordingly, having decided that there were concerns about the GST treatment applied to certain invoices, the Manager decided that the Practice should be re-registered for GST. 147 We accept the evidence of the Manager contained in his thirteenth report as to the reason for his confirmed appointment which was that the Manager was reappointed for a further term on 12 March 202696 because the trust issues were unresolved at the time the Manager's appointment would otherwise have come to an end because the Manager considered that there may be a need to refund GST to the various clients who had paid from the trust funds amounts which included a GST component.97 We so find. 148 We are satisfied and find that by refusing to re-register the Practice for GST the Applicant has obstructed the Manager in his management of the Practice and extended the need for the Manager to remain in place. 149 We accept that it may have been reasonable for the Applicant to query whether the reregistration was necessary when initially directed to reregister the Practice for GST. However, it was not acceptable for the Applicant ultimately to refuse to assist the Manager with the reregistration because he thought that reregistration was unnecessary and the Manager's view was wrong. Conclusion as to whether the Applicant is fit and proper 150 In light of the facts as we have found them, we turn to consider whether the Applicant has satisfied us that he is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. 95 Exhibit 1.12, page 494. 96 Exhibit 1.39, pages 1821 - 1824. 97 Exhibit 1.13, pages 502 - 514. -- 37 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 38 151 The Applicant's submissions, although repetitive and difficult to follow, contain some statements which we can regard as submissions supporting a contention that he is fit and proper. For example, he says that the breaches of his obligations in relation to his practice's trust account can be characterised as 'historical', 'minor', 'technical' and 'administrative' rather than demonstrative of dishonesty.98 We have already found that the Senior Auditor described the irregularities to be 'high impact issues'. Accordingly, we reject his characterisation of them as minor, technical and administrative. They can also not be described as historical. We do however decline to find they demonstrate dishonesty. We also accept that it is not said that any of the Applicant's accounting failures resulted in a loss of any money by any client or that the Applicant misappropriated any clients' funds. 152 He also says that he has practiced for many years without any disciplinary finding being made against him before this time. We accept that is correct and we regard it to be a relevant consideration in determining whether he is fit and proper. 153 The Applicant told us that he has personal financial responsibilities and hopes to work for another two years before retiring.99 Since he has been unable to work as a lawyer he has been working as a settlement agent although it seems unlikely to him that that will be allowed to continue if he is found not to be fit and proper to hold a practising certificate. 154 The Applicant genuinely believes that the appointment of a Manager occurred because members of the Board or its staff held the mistaken belief that he had misappropriated funds of approximately $400,000 from his clients and that he has been punished for asking questions of the Board and the Manager. This is despite the fact that the Board and the Manager have assured him that this was not the reason for his appointment.100 155 The Applicant seems genuinely baffled that his serious illness led to the appointment of a Manager and to the refusal of the Board to renew his practising certificate. 156 In the closing paragraph of the Applicant's written submissions he says: 98 Applicant's Outline of Submissions, page 26. 99 ts 2 June 2026, page 89. 100 Exhibit 1.19, page 638. -- 38 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 39 Since March 2025, I have been subjected to a series of serious and escalating regulatory actions by the Legal Practice Board, including the appointment of a manager to my practice, investigations concerning my medical condition, an extensive inspection of the practice trust records, and the raising of a number of false allegations concerning my interactions with the appointed manager. Disciplinary action was commenced on 17 October 2025, but has not materially progressed despite the passage of approximately eight months. The Board has refused to accept or renew my practising certificate. The appointed manager and the Legal Practice Board now seek to wind up my practice, Sivan Legal and the Board is claiming approximately $140, 000 from me in respect of the manager's fees. I have not earned any income from the practice since March 2025. These matters have occurred shortly after I suffered a life-threatening illness, and the cumulative effect of the Board's conduct has been severe. In all the circumstances, I contend that the actions against me have been harsh, oppressive and disproportionate, particularly where the alleged trust accounting breaches appear to be minor or technical in nature, client funds were not misused, and the external examiner's reports for the relevant period did not raise matters of serious concern. 157 In his submission the Applicant refers to a disciplinary matter having been commenced in October 2025. There is no disciplinary proceeding brought by the Board against the Applicant currently before the Tribunal. We understand the Applicant's reference to disciplinary proceedings to be a reference to the Board's own initiative complaint which it commenced in early October pursuant to s 266(2) of the Uniform Law. 158 We appreciate the Applicant's distress that a physical illness has led to the loss of his ability to practice his chosen profession. However, in our view, it is the Applicant's ongoing response to the appointment of the Manager over a considerable period of time, that has brought him to the position where we must now consider whether, given the facts as we have found them, he is fit and proper to hold a practising certificate. 159 Having regard to the facts established in this matter, and the matters set out below, including those to which we may have regard under r 13(1) of the Uniform Rules, we are satisfied and find that: (i) apart from the matters we have found in this case, the Applicant has, over his lengthy career as a lawyer, been regarded as being of good fame and character; (ii) the Applicant's trust accounts for the period year ended 31 March 2020 to 31 March 2025 had been audited annually by -- 39 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 40 an external examiner as required by s 155(1) of the Uniform Law and not all of the issues which were identified in the report of 16 September 2025 were identified at the time; (iii) the Applicant is the subject of an unresolved complaint into his trust accounts management which is currently being investigated by the Board;101 (iv) there is a manager appointed to the Applicant's Practice; (v) failing to comply with the Section 371 Notice and the Section 95 Notice contravenes an Australian law relating to the legal profession; (vi) as to the question of whether the Applicant is currently unable to carry out the inherent requirements of practice as an Australian legal practitioner, we note that the medical report required by the s 95 Notice has not been provided by the Practitioner to the Board. The material before us, however, includes a medical report written at the time of the Applicant's discharge from hospital in April 2025 which indicated that he as fit to work as a lawyer. The discharge notes from his stay in hospital are also in evidence. There is nothing in those notes that suggest that the Applicant is physically or mentally unfit to carry out the inherent requirements of practice. We have previously identified our concerns about the Applicant's presentation at the hearing on 2 June. They did raise some concerns for us. However, the Board did not ask us to find that we could not be satisfied that the Applicant was presently physically or mentally unfit to practice. Its reliance on the failure to provide a medical report as required by the notice issued pursuant to s 95 of the Uniform Law being only relevant to the Applicant's character. Accordingly, we make no finding of physical or mental unfitness to carry out the inherent requirements of legal practice. 160 In Marcevski and Victorian Legal Service Board (Legal Practice) (No 2)102 Vice President Tran considered the meaning of the phrase 'unable to fulfil the inherent requirement of an Australian legal practitioner' in s 82(1)(d) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (Vic) 101 Exhibit 1.19, pages 582 - 583. 102 Marcevski and Victoria Legal Services Board (Legal Practice) (No 2) [2025] VCAT 1008 (Marcevski). -- 40 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 41 (Uniform Law (Vic)).103 In that case the Board had cancelled the practitioner's practising certificate having formed the belief that the practitioner was unable to fulfill the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner and the practitioner then sought review of that decision under s 100 of the Uniform Law (Vic). The practitioner argued on review that the power to cancel a practising certificate under s 82(1)(d) was not available where the Board believed that the practitioner was dishonest or otherwise unlikely or unwilling to fulfill the requirements of an Australian legal practitioner but was instead limited to situations where the practitioner was unable, by reason of mental or physical health, to fulfill those requirements. He submitted: 1. that the expression 'unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner' was not the same as 'is not a fit and proper person'; 2. that a person who had been shown, based on past behaviour, that they were unlikely or unwilling to fulfil the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner is not someone who is 'unable' to do so; and 3. that honesty was not one of the inherent requirements of a legal practitioner. 161 In contrast, the Board, in that case, submitted that: 1. had Parliament intended only to refer to physical or mental ill- health, it could have easily done so and the use of the expression 'unable to fulfill the inherent requirements …' suggested a wider meaning;104 2. 'unable' was a word of variable rather than rigid or narrow meaning; and105 3. it adopted the following list of inherent requirements of legal practice described in MN Legal and Management Consultants v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales:106 (a) the ability to perform the day to day tasks associated with providing legal services, including the ability to communicate 103 Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Vic), Sch 1. 104 Marcevski, [22], [25]. 105 Marcevski, [23]. 106 MN Legal and Management Consultants v The Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2018] NSWSC 1410 [47], cited in Marcevski, [24]. -- 41 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 42 in a professional manner with the courts, law-enforcement agencies and other legal practitioners; (b) the ability to discharge the legal practitioner's tortious and fiduciary duties to his or her clients, whether arising under their retainer, in trust or in equity; (c) the ability to discharge the legal practitioner's duties to the Court, including: (i) the duty to be honest and courteous in all dealings in the course of legal practice; (ii) the duty not to engage in conduct, in the course of practice or otherwise which is likely to a material degree to be prejudicial to, or diminish the public confidence in, the administration of justice, or bring the profession into disrepute…; (iii) the duty not to knowingly mislead the court…; (iv) the duty not to allege any matter of fact in any court document settled by the solicitor, or in any submission during any hearing, unless the solicitor believes on reasonable grounds that the factual material available provides a proper basis to do so…;' (v) the duty not to communicate in the opponent's absence with the court concerning any matter of substance in connection with the current proceeindgs … … To those matters there would need to be added an obligation to obey the law and to comply with court orders. 162 In that case the Board also submitted that in addition to physical and mental ill-health matters such as lack of education, competence, character and integrity were matters to which the Board, and the Tribunal on review, could have regard in determining whether a person was unable to fulfil the inherent requirement of an Australian legal practitioner.107 163 The Victorian Tribunal, when considering the text, context and purpose of the provision, the Tribunal, relying on statements made by 107 Marcevski, [25]. -- 42 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 43 McHugh J in X v The Commonwealth108 considered that compliance with a duty of honesty, rather than having an honest character, was an inherent requirement of legal practice. The Tribunal considered that character assessment did form part of the issue of whether a person could fulfil the inherent requirements of legal practice. 164 It is not necessary for us to determine whether we would follow the decision of the Victorian Tribunal in Marcevski. In our view, to the extent that the matters put against the Applicant concern matters other than physical and mental health, they are matters that we can consider when having regard to whether his character is of a kind that renders us satisfied that he is a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. We have come to the conclusion that the Applicant has not satisfied us that he is presently a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. 165 This is because we consider that his continued obstruction of the Manager, his breach of his Undertaking and his failure to comply with the Section 371 Notice and the Section 95 Notice are each serious failings which, when taken together, demonstrate that he is a person who has been unwilling to cooperate with the regulatory authority and the Manager and who has repeatedly acted in way which does not comply with the requirements of the law and has demonstrated that he cannot be taken at his word in relation to his engagement with the Manager. 166 Lawyers, perhaps even more so than other citizens, cannot simply decide for themselves which laws and legal requirements they will chose to follow and comply with and which undertakings they will, and will not, adhere to. The way in which to address concerns about the validity of the appointment of the Manager and the Manager's requests was not to obfuscate and refuse to comply with requests and directions, as the Applicant did. The concerns he had about the validity of the Undertaking were not properly addressed by simply treating it as invalid. 167 If the Applicant had attended the hearing before us demonstrating insight into the misguided nature of his prior conduct by evidencing a willingness to work with the Manager, and having remedied the breach of his Undertaking and having complied with the Section 371 Notice and the Section 95 Notice, we may have been persuaded that he was a fit and proper person to hold an Australian practising certificate. 108 X v The Commonwealth [1999] HCA 63; (1999) 200 CLR 177 [31] - [32]. -- 43 of 44 -- [2026] WASAT 75 Page 44 Orders 168 We will make the following orders as a consequence of the findings we have made and the conclusion we have reached on the review: 1. The Respondent's decision to refuse to renew the Applicant's Australian practising certificate made on 13 November 2025, of which the Applicant was given notice on 17 November 2025, is affirmed. I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the State Administrative Tribunal. JD Associate to the Hon Justice Glancy 26 JUNE 2026 -- 44 of 44 --