Harradine v The University of Adelaide

Brendan Conway Harradine, the applicant, sought special leave to appeal from a decision of the University of Adelaide, the respondent. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Harradine, who was appearing as counsel for himself in an application for special leave to the High Court, was in breach of Order 70 rule 2(6) of the High Court Rules, which stipulated that such applications must be made by counsel. Mr Harradine contended that he was counsel for himself and therefore complied with the rule, or alternatively, that the rule should not apply to him in the circumstances.

The High Court was required to determine the meaning and application of Order 70 rule 2(6) in the context of a party appearing in person as counsel for themselves. Specifically, the Court had to consider whether a party appearing for themselves could be considered to be appearing "by counsel" for the purposes of the rule, and whether the rule was intended to apply to such a situation. The Court also had to consider whether its inherent jurisdiction could be invoked to mitigate the effects of the rule if it were found to be breached.

The applicant argued that the rule was designed to prevent vexatious claims, ensure conciseness and cogency in argument, and uphold the dignity of the law by preventing incompetent self-representation. He submitted that he was counsel for himself and therefore not caught by the rule, drawing a distinction with a hypothetical rule requiring representation by counsel. He further invited the Court to use its inherent jurisdiction to allow him to proceed, undertaking to conduct himself appropriately. The Court noted the absence of a precise authority on the point of a party appearing as counsel for themselves.

The Court did not make a final order on the application for special leave in the provided transcript. The discussion focused on the preliminary issue of whether the applicant was properly before the Court under Order 70 rule 2(6).