The Law Society of the Northern Territory v Nolan [2002] NTSC 46

PARTIES: THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

v

JONATHAN PETER NOLAN

TITLE OF COURT: FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY

JURISDICTION: FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION

FILE NO: SC108 of 2001 (20108961)

DELIVERED: 9 August 2002

HEARING DATES: 9 August 2002

JUDGMENT OF: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ

REPRESENTATION:

Counsel:
Plaintiff: P. Barr
Defendant: No appearance

Solicitors:
Plaintiff: The Law Society of the Northern Territory
Defendant: No appearance

Judgment category classification: B
Judgment ID Number: ril0223
Number of pages: 2

ril0223

IN THE FULL COURT OF THE SUPREME
COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
The Law Society of the Northern Territory v Nolan [2002] NTSC 46
No. SC108 of 2001 (20108961)

BETWEEN:

THE LAW SOCIETY OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
Plaintiff

AND:

JONATHAN PETER NOLAN
Defendant

CORAM: MARTIN CJ, MILDREN & RILEY JJ

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

(Delivered 9 August 2002)

[1] This is an application on the part of the Law Society for an order that the name of Jonathan Peter Nolan be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners on the ground that he is no longer a fit and proper person to practise as a legal practitioner.
[2] The Court notes that Mr Nolan has pleaded guilty before the Disciplinary Tribunal to three counts involving defalcation from his trust account. The circumstances of that misconduct are set out in the materials provided to the Court and need not be discussed in detail now. We accept the material placed before the court in the affidavit of Maria Ceresa, along with the submissions of Mr Barr of counsel.
[3] The misconduct of Mr Nolan is of a kind that this court has on previous occasions indicated will not be tolerated. In this case there is no explanation for the misconduct. The unexplained conduct clearly indicates that Mr Nolan is not a fit and proper person to practise as a legal practitioner.
[4] Mr Nolan has not appeared today, however we have received a letter from him in which he indicates that he has no objection to being struck off the Roll and that he does not wish to raise any argument in opposition to the application made by the Law Society of the Northern Territory. He accepts that he has acted in an unprofessional manner and that he has been guilty of specific and serious misconduct.
[5] The order of the court will be that the defendant's name be struck off the Roll of Legal Practitioners and that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of these proceedings.

_________________