Catchwords:

LEGAL PRACTITIONERS – Court’s inherent jurisdiction to supervise and discipline legal practitioners – application for removal of barrister’s name from the roll of Australian lawyers maintained by the Supreme Court of New South Wales – where barrister practised principally in New South Wales for six years holding a practising certificate from Queensland – whether representations to the Queensland Bar Association as to the barrister’s principal place of practice were made dishonestly – whether barrister a fit and proper person to remain on the Supreme Court roll

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – challenge by barrister to validity of certain provisions governing the legal profession in Tasmania and Queensland – where disciplinary proceedings against the barrister did not involve any allegation of breach of any of the impugned provisions – whether there is any “matter” arising under the Constitution in respect of the impugned provisions

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW – challenge to validity of certain provisions governing the legal profession in New South Wales or their application to the barrister – whether impugned provisions have any extra‑territorial effect – whether s 117 of the Constitution operates to render the impugned provisions inapplicable to the barrister – whether impugned provisions invalid as contrary to s 92 of the Constitution – whether impugned provisions inconsistent with various provisions of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) – whether impugned provisions inconsistent with Chapter III of the Constitution as compromising the institutional integrity of Federal and State Courts