Search




William Roy Davison

On 1 November 2001, the Bar Council of the New South Wales Bar Association resolved, pursuant to sec 38FC of the Legal Profession Act 1987, to cancel the practising certificate of William Roy Davison SC effective from midnight on Friday, 9 November 2001 to enable the proper arrangements of the barrister's affairs.

In accordance with paragraph 31 of the New South Wales Bar Association's Senior Counsel Protocol, William Roy Davison ceased to hold appointment as Senior Counsel on 9 November 2001 upon the cancellation of his practising certificate.

On 25 September 2003, the Bar Council of The New South Wales Bar Association resolved, pursuant to sec 38FC(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987, to refuse to issue a practising certificate to William Roy Davison following receipt of an application for a practising certificate from William Roy Davison.

On 7 November 2005, the Legal Services Division of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal found William Roy Davison guilty of professional misconduct and ordered that:

  1. the name of William Roy Davison be removed from the Roll of Legal Practitioners,

  2. William Roy Davison pay the costs of the Bar Association.

On 27 August 2007, the Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Willaim Roy Davison against the Administrative Decisions Tribunal decision.

On 28 February 2006, the Supreme Court of New South Wales in The Council of The New South Wales Bar Association v Davison [2006] NSWSC 65 made the following declarations and orders:

  1. A declaration that, since on or about 10 November 2001 until 30 September 2005, the defendant has practised as a barrister without being the holder of a current practising certificate in contravention of s25(1) of the Legal Profession Act 1987.

  2. An order pursuant to s720(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 restraining William Roy Davison from practising as a barrister in contravention of s14(1) of the Legal Profession Act 2004 by:

    (a) providing, for a fee, as defined in Schedule 1 (fee), advice involving the application of legal expertise in relation to a claim under any legislation or environmental planning instrument, or at common law;

    (b) providing, for a fee, advice involving the application of legal expertise in relation to the preparation and conduct of any proceedings, as defined in Schedule 1 (proceedings);

    (c) providing, for a fee, advice involving the application of legal expertise, and including statutory interpretation and the application of case law, in relation to rights and obligations under any legislation or environmental planning instrument or at common law;

    (d) providing, for a fee, advice involving the application of legal expertise in relation to the evidence of any expert or other witness in connection with a claim under any legislation or environmental planning instrument, or at common law, or proceedings;

    (e) providing, for a fee, advice involving the application of legal expertise in relation to a decision, judgment, order or determination in proceedings. In this order, the terms ‘fee’ and ‘proceedings’ have the following definitions:

‘Fee means any hourly or daily remuneration, payment for reimbursement of expenses, retainer, salary, success fee, expectancy, direction of remuneration to a company for the provision of services by the defendant, or other form of valuable consideration.

Proceedings means proceedings in any court, including any body described as a court, or any other judicial or statutory tribunal, statutory investigation, mediation, or compromise negotiation.’

The Supreme Court noted that in accordance with s14(3) of the Legal Profession Act 2004, nothing in its order is intended to interfere with the performance of any general legal work by William Roy Davison for Walker Corporation Pty Limited, insofar as it is done by him:

(a) in his capacity as an employee of Walker Corporation Pty Limited; and

(b) in the ordinary course of his employment by Walker Corporation Pty Limited; and

(c) for which he receives no fee, gain or reward for so doing other than his ordinary remuneration as an employee of Walker Corporation Pty Limited.

On 19 July 2006, the supreme Court in The Council of The NSW Bar Association v Davison [2006] NSWSC 699 made the following declaration and order:

  1. A declaration that the conduct of the defendant referred to and set forth in paragraphs [147] to [149] inclusive (including that set out in the schedule to the judgment) was done wilfully and without reasonable excuse, and accordingly, that the defendant was guilty of professional misconduct within the meaning of s25(4) of the Legal Profession Act 1987 from on or about 10 November 2001 until on or about 14 September 2005.

  2. An order that the defendant pay the plaintiff's costs of the proceedings.