QLD BAR CERTIFICATION PAPER 2026
FULL SOLUTION GRADED A+
● Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 Answer: Facts: After hearing, leave
was given to "add any references" to certain issues concerning the
application of Browne v Dunn to the proceedings. Both parties provided
further submissions, instead of merely referring the court to additional
authorities or other references.
Key principles:
· Parties should not place before the court any further material after a
hearing without, or outside of, any leave given.
· Once a matter is reserved, the parties' rights to argument and to be
heard have been exhausted: Bale v Mills.
Outcome: Court ignored further submissions provided.
● Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd (2005) 62 NSWLR 731 Answer: Proofs
of evidence:
Case on lawyers who let witnesses communicate with each other about
there evidence on a group conference call.
Rule:
Lawyers must take proofs of evidence from lay witnesses separately and
encourage them not to discuss their evidence with others (in particular,
with other potential witnesses).
,Encouraging witnesses to confer / collude can amount to unsatisfactory
professional conduct or worse.
● Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2] [2013]
NSWSC 1971 Answer: There should be no communication (written or
oral) with a judge's chambers in connection with any proceedings
without the knowledge and consent of the other party other than in
specific exceptional cases:
(1) trivial matters of practice, procedure and administration;
(2) ex parte matters;
(3) responding to communication from court or where directed to by
court order / direction;
(4) exceptional circumstances.
AND:
· Sending an inappropriate communication with a disclosure of the other
party's lack of knowledge or consent does not cure any impropriety.
● Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins [2006] QLPT 12 Answer:
Settlement negotiations anticipate a measure of honesty from both
parties.
Honesty extends outside of the courtroom
, Cannot make a 'positive' claim on a dodgy claim
● Tri-star Petroleum Company & Ors v Australia Pacific LNG Pty
Limited & Ors [2017] QSC 136 Answer: When express undertakings as
to disclosure of confidential information:
Default position there is a implied undertaking.
Sometimes an express is needed (by whom?)
• Party receiving compelled disclosure must not use it for an unrelated
purpose, unless it is received into evidence: Hearne v Street. • Third
parties also bound if aware of material's origins in legal proceedings. •
Implied undertaking usually enough to protect confidentiality, but
exceptional circumstances may require express undertaking (e.g. trade
rivals): Mobil Oil
● Virgtel v Zabusky (No 2) [2009] 2 Qd R 293 Answer: Facts: After
hearing, Counsel forwarded further submissions to Court in
circumstances where further submissions had not been requested and
leave not been sought.
Key principles: Parties must make their submissions at the hearing
afforded them by the Court. Further submissions may only provided if
court requests or leave granted.
Outcome: Court declined to receive further submissions.
● Where are costs dealt with? Answer: Part 3.4 LPA
FULL SOLUTION GRADED A+
● Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 Answer: Facts: After hearing, leave
was given to "add any references" to certain issues concerning the
application of Browne v Dunn to the proceedings. Both parties provided
further submissions, instead of merely referring the court to additional
authorities or other references.
Key principles:
· Parties should not place before the court any further material after a
hearing without, or outside of, any leave given.
· Once a matter is reserved, the parties' rights to argument and to be
heard have been exhausted: Bale v Mills.
Outcome: Court ignored further submissions provided.
● Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd (2005) 62 NSWLR 731 Answer: Proofs
of evidence:
Case on lawyers who let witnesses communicate with each other about
there evidence on a group conference call.
Rule:
Lawyers must take proofs of evidence from lay witnesses separately and
encourage them not to discuss their evidence with others (in particular,
with other potential witnesses).
,Encouraging witnesses to confer / collude can amount to unsatisfactory
professional conduct or worse.
● Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2] [2013]
NSWSC 1971 Answer: There should be no communication (written or
oral) with a judge's chambers in connection with any proceedings
without the knowledge and consent of the other party other than in
specific exceptional cases:
(1) trivial matters of practice, procedure and administration;
(2) ex parte matters;
(3) responding to communication from court or where directed to by
court order / direction;
(4) exceptional circumstances.
AND:
· Sending an inappropriate communication with a disclosure of the other
party's lack of knowledge or consent does not cure any impropriety.
● Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins [2006] QLPT 12 Answer:
Settlement negotiations anticipate a measure of honesty from both
parties.
Honesty extends outside of the courtroom
, Cannot make a 'positive' claim on a dodgy claim
● Tri-star Petroleum Company & Ors v Australia Pacific LNG Pty
Limited & Ors [2017] QSC 136 Answer: When express undertakings as
to disclosure of confidential information:
Default position there is a implied undertaking.
Sometimes an express is needed (by whom?)
• Party receiving compelled disclosure must not use it for an unrelated
purpose, unless it is received into evidence: Hearne v Street. • Third
parties also bound if aware of material's origins in legal proceedings. •
Implied undertaking usually enough to protect confidentiality, but
exceptional circumstances may require express undertaking (e.g. trade
rivals): Mobil Oil
● Virgtel v Zabusky (No 2) [2009] 2 Qd R 293 Answer: Facts: After
hearing, Counsel forwarded further submissions to Court in
circumstances where further submissions had not been requested and
leave not been sought.
Key principles: Parties must make their submissions at the hearing
afforded them by the Court. Further submissions may only provided if
court requests or leave granted.
Outcome: Court declined to receive further submissions.
● Where are costs dealt with? Answer: Part 3.4 LPA
