[2011] QCA 320
COURT OF APPEAL
MARGARET McMURDO P
CHESTERMAN JA
MARGARET WILSON AJA
Appeal No 6355 of 2011
DC No 393 of 2004
IRENE CORONIS Appellant/Plaintiff
and
JILT PTY LTD First Respondent/Defendant
and
LESLIE JAMES WILLIAMS Second Respondent/Defendant
BRISBANE
DATE 10/11/2011
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The appellant in this matter, Irene Coronis, who has chosen to appear by telephone from Cairns, has asked that she be represented today at the hearing by her husband, Mr James Bradshaw, who is present, as he is a party in the next appeal the Court is to hear.
Mr Bradshaw was a barrister but currently does not hold a practising certificate. She asks that he be permitted to appear today, not as a barrister on her behalf, but as a husband and friend and she expressed her great confidence in him.
There are three reasons why I consider the application should be refused.
The first is because, as this Court explained in Coffey v State of Queensland & Ors [2010] QCA 291 at [38], the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) which requires that only persons with a current practising certificate can appear before the Court is designed to protect the public interest in the proper administration of justice by ensuring that legal work is carried out only by those who are properly qualified to do so and to protect consumers by ensuring that persons carrying out legal work are entitled to do so.
The second is that Ms Coronis has put in very detailed written submissions in this case and, in that respect, she has clearly had the assistance of Mr Bradshaw. She has put in a written address, as well as a synopsis of argument and a reply to the respondent's outline of argument. It is difficult to see what more could be done on her behalf to put the arguments she has.
The third and very significant factor is that Mr Bradshaw was a witness in this case at first instance and it is a well established point of practice that a barrister should not appear before the courts in cases where the barrister is a witness in the case.
For those three reasons, I do not consider it would be appropriate in this case for Mr Bradshaw to appear for the appellant or to assist the Court.
CHESTERMAN JA: I agree.
MARGARET WILSON AJA: I agree.
- AGLC
- Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd [2011] QCA 320
- Case
- [2011] QCA 320
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The central legal question before the Court of Appeal was whether the District Court correctly applied the law in reaching its decision. Specifically, the appeal focused on the application of the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld), which mandates that only individuals with a current practising certificate can represent parties before the Court. Additionally, the appeal examined the ethical implications of a former barrister, who was also a witness in the case, representing the appellant. The Court had to determine if permitting such representation would uphold the integrity of the legal system and the public's confidence in it.
The Court of Appeal unanimously refused the appellant's request for her husband, Mr James Bradshaw, to represent her, despite his prior legal qualifications and his evident contribution to her written submissions. The Court emphasized that the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) serves to safeguard the public interest and ensure that only appropriately qualified individuals engage in legal practice. Furthermore, the Court highlighted the ethical concerns associated with a former barrister, who was also a witness in the case, representing the appellant. The Court concluded that allowing such representation could compromise the integrity of the judicial process and diminish public trust in the legal system.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.