Manny v David Lardner Lawyers (No 3)

This matter concerned an application by the respondent, David Lardner Lawyers, for summary judgment on an appeal brought by the appellant, Manny. The appeal concerned a decision of the primary judge.

The primary legal issues before Kennett J were whether summary judgment was available on an appeal and, if so, whether the appeal should be dismissed due to non-compliance with the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) regarding the notice of appeal. The court was also required to consider the extent to which allowance should be made for the appellant’s status as a self-represented litigant.

Kennett J determined that summary judgment is a procedural mechanism that can be invoked on appeal. His Honour found that the notice of appeal did not comply with the requirements of rule 5403 of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT). However, applying the principles of leniency towards self-represented litigants, and noting that the respondent had not demonstrated prejudice arising from the non-compliance, Kennett J declined to dismiss the appeal on this ground. Instead, the court allowed the appellant an opportunity to amend the notice of appeal.

The court ordered that the appellant be granted leave to amend the notice of appeal within 21 days, and that the respondent’s application for summary judgment be adjourned to a date to be fixed.