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.
- AGLC
- Hillcrest (Ilford) Pty Ltd v Kingsford (Ilford) Pty Ltd [2010] NSWSC 284
- Case
- [2010] NSWSC 284
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to determine whether it was appropriate to grant leave to a non-qualified entity to act on behalf of a party in Supreme Court proceedings. The central legal issue was whether the firm's lack of properly qualified legal practitioners warranted denying leave, thereby preventing the firm from continuing to represent Hillcrest. The court considered whether such a denial would cause injustice or hardship to Hillcrest and whether the firm could sufficiently understand and navigate the complexities of Supreme Court litigation despite the absence of qualified legal practitioners.
In addressing these issues, the court concluded that granting leave to the firm to continue representing Hillcrest would not cause significant injustice or hardship. The firm demonstrated a sufficient understanding of the legal proceedings and the ability to effectively advocate on behalf of Hillcrest. The court acknowledged the firm's practical experience and expertise in property law, which it deemed adequate for the matters at hand. The court found that the interests of justice were best served by allowing the firm to continue representing Hillcrest, subject to certain conditions aimed at mitigating any potential risks arising from the firm's lack of qualified legal practitioners.
The final orders of the court were that the firm be granted leave to continue representing Hillcrest in the proceedings, subject to specific conditions. These conditions included the requirement for the firm to be supervised by a qualified legal practitioner during the course of the litigation, and for the firm to provide regular updates to the court on its compliance with these conditions. The court emphasised the importance of ensuring that Hillcrest's interests were adequately protected throughout the proceedings.
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.