1|Page
QLD BAR EXAM – ETHICS (ACTUAL 2025/2026)
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED 100% CORRECT ANSWERS
(LATEST UPDATE
What is the exam looking for? - (answer)a) identify the general principle behind
the ethical/ bar rule and the reason for it;
b) answer the question asked and identify any legislative provision or rule
applicable;
c) apply the content of the ethical/ Bar rule (or at least to state its key
components) in addition to stating the rule; and
d) identify where an active role in pursuing an ethical course is required of the
barrister whether that be vis a vis the solicitor, the client, third party or the court.
Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 - (answer)Facts: After hearing, leave was given to
"add any references" to certain issues concerning the application of Browne v
Dunn to the proceedings. Both parties provided further submissions, instead of
merely referring the court to additional authorities or other references.
Key principles:
· Parties should not place before the court any further material after a hearing
without, or outside of, any leave given.
· Once a matter is reserved, the parties' rights to argument and to be heard have
been exhausted: Bale v Mills.
Outcome: Court ignored further submissions provided.
Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd (2005) 62 NSWLR 731 - (answer)Proofs of evidence:
Case on lawyers who let witnesses communicate with each other about there
evidence on a group conference call.
,2|Page
Rule:
Lawyers must take proofs of evidence from lay witnesses separately and
encourage them not to discuss their evidence with others (in particular, with
other potential witnesses).
Encouraging witnesses to confer / collude can amount to unsatisfactory
professional conduct or worse.
Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2] [2013] NSWSC 1971 -
(answer)There should be no communication (written or oral) with a judge's
chambers in connection with any proceedings without the knowledge and
consent of the other party other than in specific exceptional cases:
(1) trivial matters of practice, procedure and administration;
(2) ex parte matters;
(3) responding to communication from court or where directed to by court order
/ direction;
(4) exceptional circumstances.
AND:
· Sending an inappropriate communication with a disclosure of the other party's
lack of knowledge or consent does not cure any impropriety.
Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins [2006] QLPT 12 - (answer)Settlement
negotiations anticipate a measure of honesty from both parties.
, 3|Page
Honesty extends outside of the courtroom
Cannot make a 'positive' claim on a dodgy claim
Tri-star Petroleum Company & Ors v Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited & Ors
[2017] QSC 136 - (answer)When express undertakings as to disclosure of
confidential information:
Default position there is a implied undertaking.
Sometimes an express is needed (by whom?)
• Party receiving compelled disclosure must not use it for an unrelated purpose,
unless it is received into evidence: Hearne v Street. • Third parties also bound if
aware of material's origins in legal proceedings. • Implied undertaking usually
enough to protect confidentiality, but exceptional circumstances may require
express undertaking (e.g. trade rivals): Mobil Oil
Virgtel v Zabusky (No 2) [2009] 2 Qd R 293 - (answer)Facts: After hearing, Counsel
forwarded further submissions to Court in circumstances where further
submissions had not been requested and leave not been sought.
Key principles: Parties must make their submissions at the hearing afforded them
by the Court. Further submissions may only provided if court requests or leave
granted.
Outcome: Court declined to receive further submissions.
Where are costs dealt with? - (answer)Part 3.4 LPA
QLD BAR EXAM – ETHICS (ACTUAL 2025/2026)
QUESTIONS AND VERIFIED 100% CORRECT ANSWERS
(LATEST UPDATE
What is the exam looking for? - (answer)a) identify the general principle behind
the ethical/ bar rule and the reason for it;
b) answer the question asked and identify any legislative provision or rule
applicable;
c) apply the content of the ethical/ Bar rule (or at least to state its key
components) in addition to stating the rule; and
d) identify where an active role in pursuing an ethical course is required of the
barrister whether that be vis a vis the solicitor, the client, third party or the court.
Bale v Mills [2011] NSWCA 226 - (answer)Facts: After hearing, leave was given to
"add any references" to certain issues concerning the application of Browne v
Dunn to the proceedings. Both parties provided further submissions, instead of
merely referring the court to additional authorities or other references.
Key principles:
· Parties should not place before the court any further material after a hearing
without, or outside of, any leave given.
· Once a matter is reserved, the parties' rights to argument and to be heard have
been exhausted: Bale v Mills.
Outcome: Court ignored further submissions provided.
Day v Perisher Blue Pty Ltd (2005) 62 NSWLR 731 - (answer)Proofs of evidence:
Case on lawyers who let witnesses communicate with each other about there
evidence on a group conference call.
,2|Page
Rule:
Lawyers must take proofs of evidence from lay witnesses separately and
encourage them not to discuss their evidence with others (in particular, with
other potential witnesses).
Encouraging witnesses to confer / collude can amount to unsatisfactory
professional conduct or worse.
Ken Tugrul v Tarrants Financial Consultants Pty Ltd [No.2] [2013] NSWSC 1971 -
(answer)There should be no communication (written or oral) with a judge's
chambers in connection with any proceedings without the knowledge and
consent of the other party other than in specific exceptional cases:
(1) trivial matters of practice, procedure and administration;
(2) ex parte matters;
(3) responding to communication from court or where directed to by court order
/ direction;
(4) exceptional circumstances.
AND:
· Sending an inappropriate communication with a disclosure of the other party's
lack of knowledge or consent does not cure any impropriety.
Legal Services Commissioner v Mullins [2006] QLPT 12 - (answer)Settlement
negotiations anticipate a measure of honesty from both parties.
, 3|Page
Honesty extends outside of the courtroom
Cannot make a 'positive' claim on a dodgy claim
Tri-star Petroleum Company & Ors v Australia Pacific LNG Pty Limited & Ors
[2017] QSC 136 - (answer)When express undertakings as to disclosure of
confidential information:
Default position there is a implied undertaking.
Sometimes an express is needed (by whom?)
• Party receiving compelled disclosure must not use it for an unrelated purpose,
unless it is received into evidence: Hearne v Street. • Third parties also bound if
aware of material's origins in legal proceedings. • Implied undertaking usually
enough to protect confidentiality, but exceptional circumstances may require
express undertaking (e.g. trade rivals): Mobil Oil
Virgtel v Zabusky (No 2) [2009] 2 Qd R 293 - (answer)Facts: After hearing, Counsel
forwarded further submissions to Court in circumstances where further
submissions had not been requested and leave not been sought.
Key principles: Parties must make their submissions at the hearing afforded them
by the Court. Further submissions may only provided if court requests or leave
granted.
Outcome: Court declined to receive further submissions.
Where are costs dealt with? - (answer)Part 3.4 LPA
