Ex parte Halliday; Halliday v Sacs Group Pty Ltd

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal before the High Court of Australia. The applicant, Peter Cameron Paul Halliday, sought leave to present his application in person rather than through legal counsel. The dispute arose from an underlying matter involving Sacs Group Pty Ltd, though the precise nature of that dispute is not detailed in the provided transcript.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether exceptional circumstances existed to permit Mr Halliday to argue his application for special leave to appeal in person, notwithstanding the general rule requiring such applications to be made by legal practitioners. Mr Halliday contended that the principles of natural justice, as articulated in cases such as *Lieschke*, supported his right to be heard directly, particularly given the direct involvement and jeopardy to his ordinary rights and authority as a natural guardian.

Mason CJ and McHugh J referred to High Court Rule 69A rule 11, which stipulates that an application for special leave to appeal must be made by a legal practitioner unless the Court grants leave in exceptional circumstances. Mr Halliday attempted to demonstrate these exceptional circumstances by referring to an affidavit, which he asserted indicated his experience in conducting company matters and representing himself. He argued that the direct concern and jeopardy to his rights, as highlighted by the cited principles of natural justice, constituted exceptional circumstances warranting his personal appearance.