Malouf v Malouf

The dispute in *Malouf v Malouf* concerned an appeal from a decision of the primary judge. The appellant, Mr Malouf, represented himself at trial and on appeal. The core of the dispute involved the proper interpretation and application of pre-trial directions regarding the filing of process and affidavits, and the admissibility of expert evidence.

The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the primary judge had erred in refusing to admit certain expert reports tendered by the appellant. This involved considering the mandatory nature of pre-trial directions, the requirement for expert reports to be inherently explicable, and the extent of a trial judge's duty to an unrepresented litigant. The Court also considered whether the appellant, as an unrepresented litigant, could properly appear as an advocate, and whether fresh evidence on appeal justified a new trial.

The Court held that the pre-trial directions were mandatory and that the appellant had failed to comply with them. The expert reports were found to be deficient as they were not inherently explicable, meaning their contents and conclusions were not clear or understandable without further explanation. While acknowledging a judge's duty to ensure an unrepresented litigant understands the proceedings, the Court affirmed there is no duty to advise a litigant on how to conduct their case. The Court also found that the appellant's appearance as an advocate, despite being unrepresented, was permissible but did not alter the legal principles governing the case. The application for a new trial based on fresh evidence was also dismissed.

The appeal was dismissed with costs.