Skip to main content
discipline 3 October 2026
‹ Browse decisions

Decision record

MANRAJ SINGH KHOSA

JurisdictionAustralia — Western Australia
BodyLegal Practice Board of Western Australia (LPBWA)
Professionlawyer — Suite C1 58 Newcastle Street PERTH WA 6000
Case numberKhosa v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2017] WASCA
Date20 October 2017
HearingCourt of Appeal WA
OutcomeReduced Period of Suspension - State Administrative Tribunal orders in [2015] WASAT 107 (S) set aside. New orders substituted

Allegation / charges

Reduced Period of Suspension - State Administrative Tribunal orders in [2015] WASAT 107 (S) set aside. New orders substituted

Findings — machine-extracted (anthropic-batch:claude-opus-4-8); verify against the decision

SanctionSuspension
Suspension2 months
CostsAUD 8,367
Dishonesty foundYes

Mr Khosa, a WA solicitor, was found by SAT to have committed professional misconduct by knowingly breaching a personal undertaking to another practitioner (Mr Gough) not to release/lodge a withdrawal of caveat until costs were resolved. SAT imposed a 6-month suspension, reprimand, and costs of $8,367. On consolidated appeals, the Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal against the misconduct finding but, by majority (Murphy & Beech JJA; Buss P dissenting), allowed the penalty appeal, holding the 6-month suspension manifestly excessive. The Tribunal had found a degree of dishonesty in the knowing breach. The majority substituted a 2-month suspension, finding a fine inadequate given the deliberate, dishonest breach and lack of timely remorse, but that a short suspension sufficed for public protection and maintenance of professional standards.

Duties found breached:

Aggravating factors:

  • Breach of undertaking was deliberate and knowing, not merely reckless
  • Tribunal found a degree of dishonesty involved in the knowing breach
  • Absence of demonstrated remorse; denied wrongdoing and gave explanation rejected by Tribunal
  • Obtained a personal benefit by placating unhappy clients
  • Conduct not at the lower end of seriousness for breaches of undertaking

Mitigating factors:

  • Conduct akin to an isolated act of misjudgment with no relevant disciplinary history
  • Undertaking demanded at the last minute; Mr Khosa justified in regarding the demand as unreasonable and could not obtain instructions
  • No direct personal enrichment
  • No loss suffered by the party to whom the undertaking was given
  • Some degree of insight; acknowledged importance of undertakings and indicated he would not repeat
  • Good character references and financial hardship (given limited weight)

Duties engaged

Other decisions involving this respondent

Matched by respondent name — may include a different person with the same name.

Documents

Source: https://www.lpbwa.org.au/getmedia/e88f5464-6f25-45e2-b150-f9c594dd81c1/register_of_disciplinary_action.pdf