Liability / duty of candour / failure to disclose relevant information to High Court in without notice application / whether conduct is misconduct / High Court Rules 2016, rule 32.2 / Lawyers and Conveyancers (Lawyers: Conduct and Client Care) Rules 2008, rule 2.1 / rule 13.1 / HELD / should have disclosed a refused analogous Family Court application, a claim by opposing party, and a potential defence / outcome of proceedings affected / practitioner’s explanation to Tribunal differed from submissions to Committee / reckless breach of duty of candour / practitioner’s forum shopping of “significant concern” / misconduct charge proved / Tribunal could not infer deliberate omission of documents without evidence from employee / practitioner obliged to provide as much information as available to assist Tribunal / interim name suppression granted