Chi v NSW Legal Services Commissioner [2025] NSWCATOD 104;

1. Both the Applicant and the Commissioner participated in the hearing.
2. In addition to the Administrative Review Application, the Applicant relies on written submissions handed up at the hearing on 7 August 2025, together with an email dated 18 November 2024 that he received from the lawyer/law practice the subject of the Applicant's complaint. The Commissioner did not object to him relying on that material and those written submissions. The Applicant made oral submissions at the hearing.
3. The Commissioner relies on written submissions on jurisdiction dated 31 July 2025, as supplemented by oral submissions at the hearing.

1. The Applicant had an opportunity at the hearing to identify the specific statutory provisions in the Uniform Law, the Legal Profession Uniform Law Application Act 2014 (Application Act), the Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW) (NCAT Act), or any other Act, which confers jurisdiction on NCAT to hear and determine the Administrative Review Application.
2. In his submissions at the hearing, the Applicant says that NCAT has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision (made under s 277(1)(a)) of the Uniform Law) under s 9 of the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 (NSW) (ADR Act) because:

(1) the decision was made under an enactment, being the Uniform Law; and

(2) the Applicant's rights were directly affected by the decision because his allegations about the lawyer and law practice were not "properly investigated".

1. The Applicant asserts that he was victimised by the Commissioner, including by way of the law practice's refusal to provide legal services to the Applicant. He alleges that this "violates both ethical and legal standards" for the provision of legal services. The Applicant contends that the Commissioner's failure to investigate this matter is an improper exercise of discretion and "a denial of justice".
2. The Applicant seeks orders by way of a "declaration" that NCAT has jurisdiction to review the Commissioner's decision under s 277(1)(a) of the Uniform Law to close the complaint in question; an order for the Commissioner to investigate the complaint, including the law practice's refusal to provide legal services; and an order to review the conduct of the law practice.

1. The Commissioner submits that NCAT has no jurisdiction to determine the Administrative Review Application. In written submissions, she refers to provisions in the NCAT Act (ss 28 and 30), the ADR Act (ss 7, 9 and 55), and to s 314 of the Uniform Law, relevant to the conferral of jurisdiction on NCAT. The Commissioner says three things are required for NCAT to have jurisdiction to hear a review of a decision made by the Commissioner under s 314. There must be a decision made under s 299 of the Uniform Law, and/or a decision made under s 290 of the Uniform Law (compensation order for more than $10,000), and the respondent lawyer (or legal practitioner associate of a respondent law practice) (within the meaning of s 314(1)) must be the applicant seeking administrative review (not the complainant).
2. Here, the Commissioner says that the complainant is not a person entitled under enabling legislation, relevantly the Uniform Law, to make an application to NCAT for an administrative review of the Commissioner's decision to close the complaint in question. Moreover, since the Commissioner's decision was made under s 277(1)(a), and not ss 299 or 290 of the Uniform Law, NCAT has no jurisdiction to determine the Administrative Review Application.

Does NCAT have jurisdiction to decide the Administrative Review Application?

1. NCAT's first duty is to satisfy itself that it has jurisdiction in relation to an application, whether or not a respondent applies for the matter to be dismissed. To put it another way, a decision which concerns whether NCAT has jurisdiction to deal with a matter is not dependent on an application having been made for summary dismissal.
2. NCAT is a tribunal with limited jurisdiction. Its jurisdiction and functions are derived from the NCAT Act, enabling legislation and legislative instruments beyond its enabling legislation, as well as regulations and statutory rules. NCAT cannot exercise jurisdiction beyond that set out in statute, other than its anterior jurisdiction to decide whether proceedings brought before it are within its limited jurisdiction (Citta Hobart Pty Ltd v Cawthorn (2022) 276 CLR 216; [2022] HCA 16 at [62]- [63]).
3. Under s 28(1) of the NCAT Act, NCAT has "such jurisdiction and functions as may be conferred or imposed on it by or under [the NCAT Act] or any other legislation" and that jurisdiction includes "the administrative review jurisdiction of the Tribunal" in s 28(2). I recently considered the confined administrative review jurisdiction of NCAT under ss 28 and 29 of the NCAT Act in relation to the Uniform Law: Shapkin v Council of the Law Society of New South Wales [2025] NSWCATOD 66 at [40]- [43] and [52]-[62] (Shapkin). The decision in Shapkin considers NCAT's jurisdiction to review a decision of the Law Society in a different context, and clarifies that NCAT does not have jurisdiction to determine matters in and of itself by operation of ss 28 or 29 of the NCAT Act, or any "general jurisdiction" without that jurisdiction being conferred by enabling legislation: see Shapkin at [53]-[54]. I note the following comment regarding jurisdiction as it applies generally to the current proceedings:

"[43] NCAT has jurisdiction to decide applications brought before it under the Uniform Law, the Application Act and the NCAT Act only where such authority is conferred expressly on NCAT..."

1. NCAT has "administrative review jurisdiction" in the circumstances set out in s 30 of the ADR Act. Section 30(1), states that the ADR Act provides for the circumstances in which NCAT has administrative review jurisdiction over a decision of an administrator. An administrator, in relation to an administratively reviewable decision, is the person or body that makes (or is taken to have made) the decision under enabling legislation. Under the ADR Act, s 7 defines an "administratively reviewable decision" and s 9(1) states that NCAT has "administrative review jurisdiction" over a decision of an administrator if enabling legislation provides that applications may be made to NCAT for an administrative review of the relevant decision.
2. Where NCAT's administrative review jurisdiction is engaged, NCAT also has jurisdiction to make ancillary and interlocutory decisions, and to exercise other functions conferred or imposed by the NCAT Act, the ADR Act or enabling legislation in connection with the conduct or resolution of administrative review proceedings: NCAT Act, s 30(2).
3. Under s 55(1) of the ADR Act, an application to NCAT for administrative review of an "administratively reviewable decision" may only be made by an "interested person", defined in s 4 of that Act to mean "a person who is entitled under enabling legislation to make an application to the Tribunal for an administrative review under this Act of an administratively reviewable decision".
4. In summary, NCAT has jurisdiction to decide applications brought before it under the Uniform Law, the Application Act, the ADR Act and the NCAT Act only where such authority is conferred expressly on NCAT. In relation to the legislative scheme governing the conduct of lawyers and legal practitioners, for the purposes of the NCAT Act and the ADR Act, the "enabling legislation" means the Uniform Law and the Application Act.
5. Here, the Commissioner treated the Applicant's complaint as a disciplinary matter in relation to a lawyer and a law practice: Uniform Law ss 277, 276. The complaint was closed. It is the Commissioner's decision to close the complaint which is the subject of the Applicant's challenge in NCAT.
6. Section 314 of the Uniform Law provides as follows:

314 Right of appeal or review of decisions of local regulatory authority

(1) A respondent lawyer or a legal practitioner associate of a respondent law practice may, in accordance with applicable jurisdictional legislation, appeal to the designated tribunal against, or seek a review by the designated tribunal of, a determination of the designated local regulatory authority under--

(a) section 290, in relation to a compensation order for more than $10 000; or

(b) section 299.

(2) The designated tribunal may make any order it considers appropriate on the appeal or review.

(3) It is intended that jurisdictional legislation may provide a right of appeal against or a right of review of the designated tribunal's decision.

1. By virtue of the Application Act at s 11(3) and Table 2, the "designated tribunal" is NCAT in respect of s 314 of the Uniform Law. The "designated local regulatory authority" is the Commissioner in respect of Chapter 5 (which includes s 314) of the Uniform Law (s 11(1) and Table 1).
2. Section 126 of the Application Act states:

126 Right of review by NCAT about certain determinations of local regulatory authority in consumer and disciplinary matters

(1) This section deals with proceedings contemplated by section 314(1) and (2) of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) in relation to a determination of a local regulatory authority relating to--

(a) a compensation order for more than $10,000 in a consumer matter, or

(b) a disciplinary matter.

(2) A respondent lawyer or a legal practitioner associate of a respondent law practice may apply to NCAT for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of a determination of the designated local regulatory authority under--

(a) section 290 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) , in relation to a compensation order for more than $10,000, or

(b) section 299 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW) .

1. It is apparent from the legislative provisions reproduced above that only a "respondent lawyer" or "legal practitioner associate of a respondent law practice" may bring administrative review proceedings against a decision of the designated local regulatory authority (relevantly here, the Commissioner). In this context, the "respondent lawyer" is the lawyer who is the subject of a complaint. It is not the complainant.
2. We note that s 127 of the Application Act contemplates that rights of administrative review by NCAT may be provided by regulation. Section 127 is in the following terms:

127 Local regulations may provide rights of review

The local regulations may provide that an application may be made to NCAT for an administrative review under the Administrative Decisions Review Act 1997 of a specified decision or class of decisions made by a specified person or body in the exercise of functions conferred or imposed by or under -

(a) this Act or the local regulations, or

(b) the Legal Profession Uniform Law (NSW), or

(c) the Uniform Rules as they apply in this jurisdiction.

1. There is nothing contained in "local regulations" that would enable NCAT to decide the Administrative Review Application (for definition of "local regulations", see Application Act, s 3(1); s 166).
2. We agree with the Commissioner's submissions about NCAT's lack of jurisdiction to hear and determine the Administrative Review Application. There is no jurisdiction conferred on NCAT to conduct the administrative review sought.

1. The Commissioner initially sought costs, noting s 60(3)(c), (e) and/or (g) of the NCAT Act. That costs application is not pressed.

(1) The correct name of the Respondent is the NSW Legal Services Commissioner.

(2) The administrative review application lodged with the Tribunal on 26 June 2025 is dismissed for want of jurisdiction.

(3) No order as to costs.

I hereby certify that this is a true and accurate record of the reasons for decision of the Civil and Administrative Tribunal of New South Wales.