Court case, page-12

The last few paragraph in the decision of the tribunal say it all. In the context of IPH, it is a nothing.

I wonder what your motives really are? Disgruntled? Axe to grind? Downramper?

see extract from Decision below:




109. He has co-operated with the Board from the outset of its enquiries into the matter and accepted that, with the benefit of hindsight, he was remiss in failing to advise his clients promptly about the problems which arose on their files.

110. Procedures are now in place to prevent a recurrence of the problem, assisted by the fact that he is now part of a larger firm than Callinans, with somewhat more sophisticated internal review mechanisms. Mr Macauley himself has now adopted a practice of copying all correspondence with overseas agents to the client with explanation where needed.

111. Mr Macauley is a senior practitioner of some thirty years’ standing who has never come under notice for any shortcomings of professional practice before. Even now in these matters, the clients themselves have not lodged any complaint.

112. He is a respected member of the patent attorneys’ profession. He is a former President of the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys of Australia.

113. I see little point in suspending Mr Macauley from practice, particularly since my power to do so is protective rather than penal (see para 70 above). He has already 21 reached an age by which many practitioners have retired and, under the arrangements regarding his new merged firm, he must retire within three further years.

114. It is submitted for the Board that there should at least be a public reprimand but I can see no purpose served by such action in view of his seniority and the way news circulates these days on the internet. One can be confident that these proceedings and my findings will become public knowledge amongst Mr Macauley’s professional peers (if they have not already done so) and more generally very soon.

115. In that way, and through the very nature of these proceedings, having regard to his professional standing, Mr Macauley has in my view already been through enough. I have explained that I regard myself as still having a residual power to impose no penalty and that is what I intend to do.

116. There is no evidence of any adverse result for the respective clients as a result of the shortcomings for which Mr Macauley has been found guilty and there are extenuating circumstances, certainly in relation to the Indian matter.

117. For these reasons, I impose no penalty in this matter.

- Katrina Howard SC Acting as the Patent and Trade Marks Attorneys Disciplinary Tribunal 19 February 2016