D’SYLVA v Ellenbrook Family Medical Centre Pty Ltd and Bibok v Ellenbrook Family Medical Centre Pty Ltd

In the Small Claims Division of the Magistrates Court of Western Australia, Judge Kendall considered applications by the respondents, Ellenbrook Family Medical Centre Pty Ltd, for leave to be represented by a legal practitioner in proceedings brought by the applicants, Mr D’Sylva and Mr Bibok. The applicants had initiated proceedings against the medical centre, and the central dispute concerned the respondents' request for legal representation in a forum generally designed for self-represented litigants.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the respondents leave to be represented by a legal practitioner. This required the Court to consider the relevant legislative provisions and the principles governing the exercise of discretion in granting such leave, particularly within the context of the Small Claims Division's objectives.

Judge Kendall refused the applications for leave to be represented. The Court applied the principles established in *R v Small Claims Tribunal; Ex parte M.R.M. Pty Ltd* (1985) 155 CLR 170, which outline the factors to be considered when determining whether to grant legal representation in a tribunal or division designed for self-representation. These factors include the complexity of the proceedings, the relative capacity of the parties, and the need to ensure procedural fairness. In this instance, the Court found that the matters before it did not present exceptional circumstances or a complexity that would justify departing from the general rule against legal representation in the Small Claims Division. The Court emphasised the importance of the Small Claims Division's purpose in providing an accessible and informal forum for resolving disputes without the need for legal representation.