Apostolou v Commissioner of State Revenue

The case of Apostolou v Commissioner of State Revenue concerned an appeal by the appellant, Apostolou, against a decision made by the Commissioner of State Revenue. The appellant sought leave to be represented by a lay person, who would act as a McKenzie friend, in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The Commissioner of State Revenue opposed this application, arguing that it would be inappropriate for a lay person to represent the appellant in such proceedings. The matter was heard before the Court of Appeal, which was required to decide whether leave should be granted for the lay person to represent the appellant, and whether the date should be fixed for the hearing of the appeal.

The court considered the legal issues raised by the Commissioner of State Revenue, namely whether it was appropriate for a lay person to represent the appellant in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal, and whether the scandalous and irrelevant affidavit taken from the file should be considered in the decision-making process. The court also considered whether the date should be fixed for the hearing of the appeal, given the appellant's history of delay and non-compliance with court orders. The court noted that the appellant had previously been granted leave to be represented by a McKenzie friend in the proceedings before the Master, but that this did not necessarily mean that such representation was appropriate in the Court of Appeal.

The court concluded that it was not appropriate for a lay person to represent the appellant in the proceedings before the Court of Appeal. The court noted that the appellant had legal representation and that the McKenzie friend would not be able to provide any useful assistance to the appellant. The court also noted that the scandalous and irrelevant affidavit taken from the file should not be considered in the decision-making process, as it was irrelevant to the issues before the court. The court fixed a date for the hearing of the appeal, but noted that the appellant's history of delay and non-compliance with court orders would be taken into account in the decision-making process. The court granted the appellant leave to appeal, but noted that the appeal would be dismissed if the appellant did not comply with the court's orders.