Burke v Bohines Pty Ltd

This matter came before the High Court of Australia on an application by Mr P.D. Burke, appearing in person, seeking dispensation from the provisions of Order 69A rule 11. Mr Burke sought to present his application for special leave to appeal without legal representation, citing his inability to obtain legal assistance. He referred to previous High Court decisions, including *Collins (Hass) v Reg* and *Plenty v Munt*, where similar dispensations were granted to litigants in person.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether it possessed the inherent jurisdiction to dispense with the rule requiring applications for special leave to be presented by counsel, and if so, under what circumstances such a dispensation should be granted. The Court considered the purpose of the rule, which is to ensure that applications for special leave are presented with the benefit of legal advice, thereby filtering potentially unmeritorious applications. The Court also had to determine whether Mr Burke had demonstrated extraordinary circumstances justifying a departure from this rule.

Mason CJ noted that while the Court might possess an inherent jurisdiction to dispense with the rule, extraordinary circumstances must be shown. His Honour explained that the rule serves as a safeguard, ensuring applications are filtered by legal professionals. The Chief Justice also expressed doubt as to whether an appeal against the specific order Mr Burke sought to challenge – an order directing notice to the other side for an application for leave to serve – would ordinarily warrant the grant of special leave, given the Court's usual criteria of important questions of principle or matters of public importance. Mr Burke contended that his circumstances were extraordinary and that the three questions of law he raised were important principles that justified special leave.