FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA
| ELLIS v FJM PROPERTY PTY LTD | [2016] FCCA 808 |
| Catchwords: HUMAN RIGHTS – Disability discrimination – access to premises – provision of goods, services and facilities. |
| Legislation: Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986 (Cth), ss.46PO, 46PQ, 46PR |
| Applicant: | TROY ELLIS |
| Respondent: | FJM PROPERTY PTY LTD |
| File Number: | PEG 6 of… |
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Ellis v FJM Property Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2016] FCCA 808
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether a director of the respondent corporation, who was not a legal practitioner, could appear on behalf of the company. This required the Court to consider the principles governing the grant of leave for a non-lawyer to represent a corporation, and whether such an appearance would be inappropriate in the circumstances of the case.
Judge Lucev considered the relevant provisions of the *Federal Court Rules 2011* (Cth) and established case law concerning the representation of corporations. His Honour noted that while a corporation can generally be represented by a director, leave is required if the director is not a legal practitioner. The Court must be satisfied that granting leave would not be contrary to the interests of justice. In this instance, His Honour found that the director's proposed appearance would be inappropriate, particularly given the nature of the proceedings and the potential for complexity in legal argument and evidence presentation. The Court determined that the interests of justice would be better served by the respondent being represented by a qualified legal practitioner.
Consequently, leave for the director to appear on behalf of FJM Property Pty Ltd was refused.
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.