Arnold & Anor v State Bank of South Australia

Owen Roy Arnold and Jennifer Arnold sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against a decision of the State Bank of South Australia. The application was presented by Mr L.F. Hoins, who was not a lawyer but the public officer of the Financial Victims Association Incorporated, seeking leave to represent the Arnolds.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether exceptional circumstances existed to permit a non-lawyer to represent the applicants, as ordinarily required by Order 69A rule 11 of the High Court Rules. Mr Hoins argued that such circumstances were present due to the national importance of the Arnolds' case, its potential to set a precedent for numerous other cases across Australia involving members of his association, and the alleged difficulty in finding legal practitioners with the necessary expertise to argue the matter.

Mr Hoins contended that the guiding principle of treating similar cases similarly meant the outcome of the Arnolds' case would directly impact many other cases, particularly those involving members of the Financial Victims Association. He highlighted that the Federal Court had previously indicated that the High Court's decision in the Arnolds' matter would be crucial in determining the progression of other related litigation. The court was therefore asked to consider whether these factors constituted the "exceptional circumstances" necessary to deviate from the usual requirement of legal representation.