Proctor : June 2017
46 PROCTOR | June 2017 current zoning in carrying out the balancing exercise to which reference has been made – where if error were made in arriving at that conclusion, it would be one of fact and not one of law, with such an error not founding a viable ground of appeal to this court – where evidence of nine unaccepted offers for the resumed land was adduced before the Land Court member – where the Land Court member placed no weight on the offers because five were conditional, three were not regarded as genuine (the Comiskey offers) and one was aged (the Flaskas offer) – where the Land Appeal Court disagreed with the member’s conclusion as to the genuineness of the Comiskey offers – where the Land Appeal Court did not adopt the evidence of either of the two valuers’ respective valuations – where the Land Appeal Court’s final valuation reflected the Comiskey offers, the Flaskas offer and one of the conditional offers – whether the Land Appeal Court adopted a valuation methodology based on the unaccepted offers – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in having regard to verbal offers – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in having regard to conditional offers – whether the Land Appeal Court erred in incorrectly characterising a conditional offer as an unconditional offer (the Flaskas offer) – whether the incorrect characterisation vitiated the valuation of the Land Appeal Court – where the methodology employed by the Land Appeal Court to arrive at the figure of $4.1 million did not involve reliance upon offers: it was comparative sales-based, subject to adjustment for differences – where reference to the Flaskas offer was made after the value had been determined and then only in the most limited way, the Land Appeal Court noting that it would seem that the market value of the resumed land at the resumption date would have to be higher than that offer – where the Flaskas offer did not cause the Land Appeal Court to review and then adjust the value that it had determined in order to accommodate that offer in some way or other – where that error, however, would not justify setting aside the Land Appeal Court’s determination of value. Application for leave to appeal refused. Costs. KMB v Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (Queensland)  QCA 76, 28 April 2017 General Civil Appeal – where the appellant seeks a declaration that certain matters will not affect the Legal Practitioners Admissions Board (LPAB) assessment as to whether he is a fit and proper person for admission – where the appellant had previously plead guilty to two counts of unlawful sodomy and two counts of indecent treatment of a child under 16 – whether the appellant’s prior offences adversely affect an assessment as to whether he is a fit and proper person for admission – where the appellant sought out psychological counselling almost immediately after he was charged and continued with his therapy for almost a year thereafter – where the appellant was also seen by Dr Grant, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, who provided a report for the purposes of the appellant’s application to the LPAB – where Dr Grant was of the opinion that the appellant was “very remorseful about his offending” – where Dr Grant was of the opinion that the appellant had “demonstrated strong commitment to work, career and community activities, particularly over the last eight years, and is strongly focused on living a productive and successful life, hopefully as a lawyer” – where it is 10 years since the offences were committed – where he completed a Bachelor of Music degree at Griffith University, Queensland Conservatorium, and a Master of Music Studies from the same university – where he has now completed the degree of Bachelor of Laws at Queensland University of Technology with first class honours – where his grade point average for his Master of Music Studies was over six, and his grade point average in his Bachelor of Laws studies was greater than six – where he has worked extensively both on a paid and on a pro bono basis as a professional musician at a very high level – where he has worked as a paralegal at a large Brisbane solicitors’ firm and as an assistant to a practising barrister – where both in his affidavit evidence and in his oral testimony he has not sought to minimise the character of the conduct in which he engaged or to forego responsibility for it – where he has shown a thorough insight into his behaviour in his early twenties and exhibits a mature understanding about the significance to him and to his life of that behaviour – where the evidence shows that in the years since the offences were committed, the appellant has matured considerably – where he has changed from a confused young man to a mature adult who has demonstrated proficiency in his studies as a musician and as a budding lawyer – where, certainly at the present date, 10 years after the relevant conduct, there is no basis upon which either the conduct which constituted the offences or the fact of his guilt of a criminal offence should affect a judgment that the appellant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession. Appeal allowed. Decision of the LPAB be set aside. Declare that the matters contained in the applicant’s application to the LPAB do not, without more, adversely affect an assessment as to whether the appellant is a fit and proper person to be admitted to the legal profession under the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld). GREG SOWDEN REHABILITATION CASE MANAGEMENT DOMESTIC HOME CARE CERTIFICATES ISSUED Domestic Home Care Certificates issued setting out various hourly rates for Domestic Home Care. Each Certificate is addressed to your client and personally signed. Suitable to assist legal practitioners assess the quantum of gratuitous services in personal injury cases, adequate provision in testamentary matters and future spousal needs in property matters. Greg Sowden (Member Carers Queensland) GradCert Rehabilitation Case Management (Griffith) M Health Science (QUT) firstname.lastname@example.org 0447 744 029 Cost of each Certificate $ 110 inc GST An agreed undertaking is acceptable.