Chittleborough v Troy Group Pty Ltd

In this appeal, the Court of Appeal considered whether an appeal notice should be accepted for filing in light of a decision in the Supreme Court that required the signature of a legal practitioner to be a manual signature. The Court of Appeal concluded that the appeal notice should be accepted for filing because the document was signed by a legal practitioner acting on behalf of the appellant, and the Court of Appeal did not accept the interpretation of the term 'legal practitioner' that was adopted in the earlier decision. In the alternative, the Court of Appeal concluded that the failure to comply with the requirement for the signature of a legal practitioner was an irregularity that did not nullify the proceedings. The Court of Appeal directed that the appeal notice in this case be accepted for filing.