Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd

[2010] NSWSC 284

CITATION:	Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 284
HEARING DATE(S):	14 April 2010
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Biscoe AJ
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE:	14 April 2010
CATCHWORDS:	Practice and procedure - whether to grant leave to a person who is not a properly qualified legal practitioner.
CATEGORY:	Procedural and other rulings
PARTIES:	Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd (plaintiff) Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd (first defendant) Donald Trevor Harding (second defendant)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2010/00050000
COUNSEL:	Mr D Sulan (plaintiff) Mr T Harding (in person) (defendants)
SOLICITORS:	Aleco Vrisakis (plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

BISCOE AJ

14 April 2010

2010/00050000 HILLCREST (ILFORD) PTY LTD v KINGSFORD (ILFORD) PTY LTD & ANOR

EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: When this matter was called on for hearing this morning, Mr Ian Bruce Bell applied orally for leave to appear today on behalf of the second defendant, Mr Donald Trevor Harding. No prior notice of this application was given to the plaintiff or the Court.

2 Mr Bell has not been admitted to practice as a legal practitioner. He described his occupation as a consultant. He informed me from the bar table that he obtained a law degree in Queensland in 2004, that he holds a Queensland Bar practice course certificate, that he has an application pending in Queensland for admission as a legal practitioner, and that he has experience in litigation.

3 Upon my inquiring, Mr Bell told me that the reason Mr Harding has not retained a qualified legal practitioner to represent him is that Mr Harding feels he has been let down in the past by lawyers and does not want it to happen again.

4 Mr Bell handed to me a document entitled “Assistance at Court” which contained submissions and extracts from several cases. I have not had the opportunity of researching the authorities beyond consideration of the commentary in Ritchie’s Uniform Civil Procedure NSW paras 7.1.5 and 7.1.30. At para 7.1.5 the following statement appears:

“A litigant’s mere aversion to lawyers is not a sufficient basis for granting leave: Teese v State Bank of New South Wales [2002] NSWCA 219.”

5 That is precisely why Mr Harding seeks to have Mr Bell represent him. That is, he feels that he has been let down by lawyers in the past and does not want it to happen again. In my opinion, it is an insufficient reason. Therefore, I decline to grant leave to Mr Bell to appear for Mr Harding.

6 However, Mr Harding is entitled to consult with Mr Bell during the hearing provided the expeditious conduct of the hearing is not unduly diminished. That would not allow Mr Bell to suggest every word that should be spoken. I will allow Mr Bell to sit at the bar table.

7 If during the hearing circumstances arise which justify a renewal of the application, I will of course entertain it.