Barister's failure to file tax returns does not warrant lifting suspension stay: tribunal - update
A West Australian barrister fighting to hold onto her practising certificate has been accused of failing to comply with tax obligations and lying to a major bank on a home loan application.
Naomi Neilson23 April 2025•BIG LAW
We’re evolving – and so should your insights. Lawyers Weekly is going premium from 1 May, for just $5 a month. Stay informed without missing a beat! More information coming soon.
Saritha Andrews, who practised out of Francis Burt Chambers, was successful in convincing a tribunal to stay a decision of the Legal Practice Board to suspend her practising certificate but will soon face an “urgent” hearing to determine allegations of non-compliance.
At the end of last year, Andrews had her certificate suspended after the board claimed she had allegedly worked without a practising certificate. A month later, she applied for and was successful in securing a stay order until a review application could be heard.
Earlier this month, the board applied to the Western Australia State Administrative Tribunal (WASAT) to have the stay order set aside on the grounds that Andrews allegedly failed to comply with tax and disclosure obligations.
While Andrews accepted she failed to lodge eight annual tax returns and 16 quarterly business activity statements (BAS), she said she did not make a deliberate decision to avoid paying income tax and GST.
In her defence, Andrews added she has not been prosecuted by the Australian Taxation Office, she has not been declared bankrupt, the small amount of GST debt has been paid, and there was no suggestion she had lived a “lavish lifestyle” as a result of non-payments.
While Judge Henry Jackson was satisfied there was a “serious question to be tried” at the review hearing, the circumstances of the alleged offending were not enough to set aside the stay order.
The Legal Practice Board also alleged Andrews failed to disclose her non-compliance to the board over several years when she applied for practising certificates, including in her application for 2023–24.
Andrews said she did not do so because she did not know she was obligated to disclose those matters to the board, “and did not think that a failure by a legal practitioner to lodge income tax returns and/or business activity statements with the ATO could be found to be unsatisfactory professional conduct or professional misconduct”.
Whether that explanation should be accepted was for “another time”, but Judge Jackson said he would not find it was so “inexplicable” to revoke the stay order or to make a finding that she posed a risk to the profession’s reputation pending the review hearing.
The board’s third ground was that Andrews had misled Macquarie Bank by representing she was employed by Wise Family Lawyers at a time when she knew her employment “would end imminently”.
The board also alleged Andrews misled the bank about her annual salary and failed to disclose as liabilities her debt to Francis Burt Chambers and an undertaking to repay those clients “from whom she took fees while practising without a certificate”.
Andrews’ evidence was she made those full disclosures of all relevant matters to her mortgage broker, who advised her to sign the form.
Judge Jackson said that without making any findings of fact, he did not accept the board’s allegation are such that her practising certificate should remain suspended until after the review hearing.
The judge added he was “firmly of the view” that the substantive review hearing should be brought on for hearing “as a matter of urgency”, particularly because the board’s decision to suspend Andrews’ practising certificate is due to expire on 30 June 2025.
The parties have been directed to communicate about timetabling.
The case is Andrews and Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [No 2] [2025] WASAT 33 (15 April 2025)
WA barrister faces claims she practised without certificate
While facing allegations she worked without a practising certificate, a West Australian barrister convinced a tribunal to stay her suspension until review proceedings could be heard.
Naomi Neilson
09 December 2024
Saritha Andrews, who practised out of Francis Burt Chambers, had her practising certificate for the 2024–25 year suspended by the Legal Practice Board of Western Australia for allegedly practising without a certificate between October 2023 and March 2024.
However, Judge Henry Jackson, deputy president of the State Administrative Tribunal, said Andrews should have the “benefit of the stay” of the board’s decision until after there has been a review.
“I am not satisfied that the risk posed by the applicant is such that she should not be able to practice until after her application for review is determined,” Judge Jackson said in his written reasons.
After being admitted in 2012, Andrews practised as a solicitor in both Western Australia and Sydney before moving to the Bar in November 2020. She said she has never been the subject of a finding of professional misconduct or unsatisfactory professional conduct in her career.
On 30 June 2023, the last day of operation for her 2022–23 practising certificate, Andrews said she paid a fee to renew it for the 2023–24 year and sent an email to the board explaining that she had trouble logging in to its website but wanted confirmation of receipt.
The board said that despite a lack of a practising certificate, Andrews practised until 1 March 2024, when she was advised by a member of the board that no certificate had ever been issued to her and there was no record of her logging onto the website to apply for one.
In response, Andrews emailed the board to say she had applied.
“Significantly, the board says that its lack of any record of her applying, or even logging into its system to apply at the relevant time, means that there is no basis for her subsequent claims that at the time she sent those emails she honestly and reasonably believed that she had tried to apply,” Judge Jackson set out.
Andrews applied for another practising certificate shortly afterwards, but, given that it was not determined before June 2024, she made a further application for a certificate for the 2024–25 year.
That certificate was issued in August and suspended in October.
The board said it suspended her certificate because it “continues to believe, on reasonable grounds, that [Andrews is] unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner”.
Specifically, the board alleged Andrews made “false or misleading declarations” about when she applied for the certificate.
However, it did not say whether Andrews made the allegedly false statements knowingly, and submitted it was “not necessary” to its decision to determine whether it was intentional or not.
Judge Jackson disagreed, finding it would be “untenable” for the board’s decision to be made without first considering state of mind.
“I do not accept that the board, or this tribunal on review, can believe on reasonable grounds that a person is ‘unable to fulfil the inherent requirements of an Australian legal practitioner’ due to the making of a false or misleading representation without considering the state of mind of the practitioner at the time,” Judge Jackson said.
He added he could not understand why the risk of Andrews holding onto her practising certificate could not be managed “in the usual way” until the review matter has been determined.
The case is Andrews and Legal Practice Board of Western Australia [2024] WASAT 131 (29 November 2024)