Manny v David Lardner Lawyers

In the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory, the matter of *Manny v David Lardner Lawyers* concerned an application to strike out an amended notice of appeal. The first appellant, Mr Manny, represented himself, while the respondents were represented by legal practitioners. The core of the dispute revolved around the competency of the amended notice of appeal and whether companies in liquidation could be included as appellants without the liquidator's consent.

The court was required to determine two primary legal issues. Firstly, whether the amended notice of appeal should be struck out as incompetent due to non-compliance with court rules, particularly concerning its prolixity and deficiencies. Secondly, and more significantly, whether the first appellant could be granted leave to file a further notice of appeal that included companies in liquidation as appellants, given that their respective liquidators had not provided consent.

The court found that the amended notice of appeal was indeed incompetent and, by consent of the parties, ordered it to be struck out. Regarding the inclusion of the companies in liquidation as appellants, the court reasoned that under section 477(2)(a) of the *Corporations Act 2001* (Cth), the liquidator is the sole authority empowered to bring legal proceedings on behalf of a company in liquidation. Furthermore, rule 5404(3) of the *Court Procedure Rules 2006* (ACT) also requires the liquidator's consent. As the evidence clearly established that the liquidators had not consented, and one of the conditions of a previous grant of leave from 2019 was not met, the court held that these companies could not be included as appellants.

Consequently, the court granted the first appellant leave to file a further notice of appeal that complied with the rules, but expressly prohibited the inclusion of any corporation in liquidation unless the liquidator had provided their consent. The first appellant was also ordered to pay the respondents' costs for the proceedings on 3 February 2022 and 2 March 2022, as well as the costs thrown away due to the filing of the incompetent amended notice of appeal.