Change of Name - Roll of Practitioners - Australia - New Zealand

Roll of Practitioners - Change of Name

Australia & New Zealand

[A] New Zealand

• Application to Registrar - Declaratory Judgements Act 1908 - Declaration that person is one and the same: Eikelborm [2025] NZHC 3383 <https://beta.nzlii.org/cgi-bin/viewdoc/nz/cases/NZHC/2025/3383.html>: “...[2] The applicant applied to the Registrar to amend the entry in the record book of the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors of New Zealand (the Roll) so that it reflected his current name. … [4] On receipt of the application the Deputy Registrar advised the applicant that there was no ability for the Court to change the original entry on the Roll. [5] The applicant did not accept this and referred to what was said to be a “generic duty” on the Registrar to maintain accurate public records under s 17 of the Public Records Act 2005. … [14] There is nothing in those purposes that would support an inference that in circumstances where the Roll accurately records the name of someone, as it was at the date of the entry onto the Roll, the Act confers a power on the Registrar to subsequently amend that name. Neither is there any substantive provision in the Public Records Act that provides such a power. Alternative course [15] However, it would seem that there is an alternative course available to the applicant to achieve his objective. That is an order under the Declaratory Judgments Act 1908. I propose to treat the application as if it were one for a declaration under the Declaratory Judgments Act. Based on the evidence set out in [8] above, I make the following declarations: (a) John Revans Eichelbaum was admitted as a Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court of New Zealand at Wellington on 27 February 1981 under his then name of John Revans Eichelbaum. (b) The name John Revans Eichelbaum is still on the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand and no advice to remove the name from the Roll has been received. (c) John Revans Eichelbaum was born on 17 December 1956 and was registered with that name. He has subsequently lawfully changed his name so that it is now John Eikelborm. (d) John Eikelborm is the same person as John Revans Eichelbaum whose name is on the Roll of Barristers and Solicitors of the High Court of New Zealand.”

[B] Western Australia

• “After being admitted, can I change my name on the roll of practitioners?   30. Yes.  Practitioners must file an affidavit stating that they wish to change their name on the roll and provide evidence in support (for example, a marriage certificate; name change certificate; or divorce certificate).  There is no filing fee.  Once approved by the Master, Central Office will contact the practitioner to come to the Court and resign the roll.  See Practice Direction 10.2 – Change of Name of Practitioners.”: ‘Admissions: FAQs and Common Mistakes on Filing’ (Supreme Court of Western Australia, Nov 2019) <https://supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/FAQs%20Common%20Mistakes%20on%20Filing%20Motion.pdf>. 

• PD 10.2: Application in chambers supported by affidavit: “10.2. Change of Name of Practitioners 1.A practitioner who has changed his or her name, whether on marriage or otherwise, will be permitted to re-subscribe the roll on proving the change of name to the satisfaction of the Master. 2. The application should be made by affidavit exhibiting the relevant certificate”: Consolidated Practice Directions, [10.2] <https://www.supremecourt.wa.gov.au/_files/Consolidated%20Practice%20Directions%20(Original%20as%20at%2029%20April%202026).pdf>. 

• Melanie Tonon (LinkedIn) <https://www.linkedin.com/posts/melanie-tonon-a785a3a4_how-to-change-your-name-on-the-roll-of-practitioners-activity-6813012958910799872-EDeM>, archived at <https://archive.md/Rb2BU>. 

[C] High Court of Australia

• “Change in name or capacity   To update your entry on the Register please make the request by email to practitioners@hcourt.gov.au with the supporting documents. You should also include your current contact details”: ‘Register of Practitioners’ (HCA) <https://www.hcourt.gov.au/court-procedures/register-practitioners>. 

[D] Queensland

• Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) s 37(5): “37 Roll of persons admitted to the legal profession as a lawyer (1)The Supreme Court must keep a roll of persons admitted to the legal profession, as a lawyer, under this Act. (2)The local roll must include— (a)the roll of solicitors and roll of barristers, as kept by the Supreme Court and as in existence immediately before 1 July 2004; and (b)the roll of legal practitioners, as kept by the Supreme Court from 1 July 2004 to immediately before the commencement of this section. (3)After the Supreme Court makes an order admitting a person to the legal profession under this Act— (a)the registrar for the Supreme Court district at which the Supreme Court is sitting must, under the admission rules, enter the person’s name on the local roll; and (b)the person must sign the local roll. (4)The person’s admission to the legal profession under this Act takes effect when the person signs the local roll. (5)Subject to the admission rules, the Brisbane registrar may give written directions to any other registrar about keeping the local roll”.

> Sch 2 ‘brisbane registrar’: “Brisbane registrar means the registrar under the Supreme Court of Queensland Act 1991 for the Brisbane Supreme Court district.”

• No published policy for procedure on updating name on the Roll of Lawyers.

• UCPR 452(2)(b): “452 Registrar’s powers to hear and decide applications (1)A registrar of a central registry of the Supreme Court may constitute the court to hear and decide an unopposed application for an order under the Public Trustee Act 1978, part 3. (2)A registrar of the Supreme Court or District Court may constitute the court to hear and decide— (a)an application for an order to file any document or take any document off the file or admit informal affidavits to be filed; or (b)an application of a type prescribed by practice direction.”

> MRA and TTMRA Applications: SCPD 15 of 2024 <https://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0005/867488/scpd-15-of-2024.pdf>. 

[E] New South Wales

• LPAB NSW Change of Name Policy, 2018 <https://lpab.nsw.gov.au/documents/policy-documents/change-of-name-/amendment-of-name-policy.pdf>. 

• “[2]  Mr Kenna, through a law firm called Hamish Cumming Family Lawyers, engaged Mr Lloyd, a barrister, to appear on his behalf in proceedings in the Family Court of Australia. Mr Lloyd practices under the name “John Lloyd SC” although his given name and the name which appears on his practicing certificate is “David John Lloyd SC”. Mr Lloyd issued a costs agreement and disclosure in the amount of $72,000 (excluding GST) to Mr Kenna. This was based on a five-day hearing and three days preparation. Mr Kenna signed the agreement on 16 September 2019. On 18 October 2019, Mr Lloyd issued a memorandum of fees in the amount of $79,200 (including GST). This was based on four days preparation and four days hearing. … [6]  Mr Kenna’s case appeared to be that he engaged Mr Lloyd under a “misapprehension” as to his true identity. He said that, if he had known Mr Lloyd’s full name, he would have “googled” that name to discover a Justinian article which published comments from a Family Court Judge about Mr Lloyd’s conduct in another case. That article was included in the Joint Court Book that became exhibit A on the appeal. Based on the evidence before the Local Court, the Magistrate was satisfied that the same article was discoverable whichever of the two names was entered into the search engine. … [12]  The Magistrate considered the arguments of both parties. Her Honour did not accept Mr Kenna’s argument that Mr Lloyd changed the name he practices under after the “unfavourable” Justinian article was published to hide his true identity and avoid being connected to the negative press. That was, at least in part, because her Honour was provided with evidence that whether you search for “David John Lloyd SC” or “John Lloyd SC”, the same article comes up in the search results. Further, her Honour found that Mr Lloyd had practiced using only his middle name for many years prior to the article’s publication. [13]  In determining whether the costs agreement between Mr Kenna and Mr Lloyd was valid, her Honour referred to authorities supporting the proposition that a contract will be valid so long as the parties to the contract can be readily identified, notwithstanding the fact that they do not use their legal name.2 That proposition dates back to Lord Blackburn’s comments in Rossiter v Miller .3 Her Honour found that Mr Kenna was under no misapprehension in who he was dealing with, there being only one “John Lloyd SC” at Chalfont Chambers. … [21]  Mr Kenna argued that the Magistrate erred in law in finding that there was a valid costs agreement under the Legal Profession Uniform Law 2014 (NSW). He submitted that Mr Lloyd did not comply with disclosure obligations in Div 3 of the Legal Profession Uniform Law. Aside from the argument that Mr Lloyd was operating under a false name, or that there was a requirement that the name on the costs agreement was the same as the name of the practising certificate, Mr Kenna submitted that the obligation to pay Mr Lloyd lies with the Hamish Cumming Family Lawyers. … [28]  There was no error of law in the Magistrate’s decision by which she found, at least implicitly, that there was no relevant breach of the legislation. Ground 1 must also be rejected. … [29]  Magistrate Kennedy referred to the relevant authorities concerning the circumstances in which the Local Court might make an order for summary judgment. She did so by reference to what she described as “a limited defence” responding to the statement of claim and the submissions made by Mr Kenna, which largely related to the identity issue arising from the different names on the costs agreement and practicing certificate. She cited a number of relevant authorities on the power to enter summary judgment including the fact that Spencer v Commonwealth (2010) 241 CLR 118; [2010] HCA 28 was cited in O’Brien v Bank of Western Australia Ltd [2013] NSWCA 71. …”: Kenna v Lloyd [2021] NSWSC 1294. 

[F] Other Contexts - Change of Name

• Electoral Roll:  “The place of accuracy in maintaining the Rolls  [55]  The Act sets out a scheme for the enrolment of persons qualified to vote, the maintenance of the Rolls identifying those persons and the use of those Rolls. It hinges on a person’s being correctly identified. That is apparent from the provisions relating to the evidence of identity that a person must produce on claiming to be entitled to be enrolled. It is also apparent from the powers given to Divisional Returning Officers to correct the Rolls so that those who are not entitled to be enrolled are not enrolled and that the details of those who are enrolled are correct. [56]  The accuracy of the Rolls is essential to ensure that those who are entitled to vote are able to do so for that entitlement comes with their names being placed on the relevant Rolls. Accuracy is essential to ensure that only those who are entitled to vote are able to do so. There are also a number of purposes for which the Rolls may be used but which are quite unconnected with elections. It is apparent from the examples that I have given above73. that those purposes cover a range of activities as diverse as medical research and prescribed persons or organisations that carry out applicable customer identification procedures under the FTR Act and under the ALCTF Act. When those purposes are examined, it becomes apparent that accuracy in the identification of persons is also essential. …”: Re ARTHUR DENT and DARYL WIGHT AS AN AUSTRALIAN ELECTORAL OFFICER [2007] AATA 1985.