FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Meshram v Bing Lee Electrics Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 769
Appeal from: Meshram v Bing Lee Electrics Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamCG 718 File number(s): NSD 1105 of 2023
NSD 472 of 2024Judgment of: STELLIOS J Date of judgment: 11 July 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – whether appellant has legal capacity to participate in proceedings Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 56(1) and 56(2)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) rr 9.61, 9.62(1), 9.63(1) and 36.09(1)(a)
Cases cited: Gibbons v Wright (1954) 91 CLR 423
Goddard Elliot (a firm) v Fritsch [2012] VSC 87
Masterman-Listerv Brutton & Co (Nos 1 and 2) [2003] 1 WLR 1511
Meshram v Bing Lee Electrics Pty Ltd [2022] FedCFamCG 718
Snook v Magistrate Trevor Darge(No 2) [2024] WASC 91
White v Fell (Unreported, Queen’s Bench of the High Court of Justice, 12 November 1987)
Division: General Division Registry: New South Wales National Practice Area: Administrative and Constitutional Law and Human Rights Number of paragraphs: 35 Date of hearing: 8 July 2025 Counsel for the Appellant: B Byrnes Solicitors for the Appellant: Landers & Rogers Counsel for the First and Fourth to Eleventh Respondents: B Rauf Solicitors for the First and Fourth to Eleventh Respondents: Coleman Greig Lawyers Counsel for the Second and Third Respondents: A Harvey Solicitors for the Second and Third Respondents: Thrive Workplace Consulting & Legal
ORDERS
NSD 1105 of 2023
NSD 472 of 2024BETWEEN: AISHWARYA MESHRAM
Appellant
AND: BING LEE ELECTRICS PTY LTD
First Respondent
BIANCA NURSOO
Second Respondent
RAMZI YOUSIF (and others named in the Schedule)
Third Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
STELLIOS J
DATE OF ORDER:
11 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.The hearings listed for 12 August 2025 and 1 and 2 September 2025 be vacated.
2.The applications to be considered at those hearings be adjourned to dates to be determined.
3.The appellant not take any further steps in these proceedings without leave of the Court.
4.By 4.00pm on 11 July 2025, the appellant’s legal representatives provide these orders and reasons to the appellant.
5.There be no order as to costs.
6.Liberty to apply.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
7.The appellant’s legal representatives are to arrange for the appellant to meet with a consultant psychiatrist for the purpose of evaluating the appellant’s legal capacity to participate in, and give instructions for the purposes of, these proceedings.
8.The appellant is not compelled to attend the meeting with the consultant psychiatrist. However, if she were not to attend, the appellant would not be permitted to take further steps in these proceedings without leave of the Court.
9.As officers of the Court, the appellant’s legal representatives are entrusted with the responsibility of arranging and facilitating the meeting with the consultant psychiatrist, and providing the briefing questions and materials in accordance with these reasons.
10.The report of the consultant psychiatrist is to be provided directly by the consultant psychiatrist to the chambers of Justice Stellios.…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Meshram v Bing Lee Electrics Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 769
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court were whether Meshram had the legal capacity to participate in the proceedings and give instructions. The respondents argued that she lacked the requisite capacity, citing concerns about her ability to understand and manage the proceedings. The appellant's legal representatives contended that she was capable of understanding and participating in the proceedings. The court needed to determine whether the appellant's capacity to participate in the proceedings was sufficient to allow her to give instructions and manage her legal affairs.
In its decision, the court found that the appellant's legal capacity was in question. The court ordered that the hearings scheduled for August and September 2025 be vacated and that the applications be considered at a later date. The court also ordered that Meshram not take any further steps in the proceedings without the leave of the court. The court appointed a consultant psychiatrist to evaluate Meshram's legal capacity, with the report to be provided directly to the court. The appellant's legal representatives were directed to arrange for her to meet with the psychiatrist. The court emphasised that Meshram was not compelled to attend the evaluation, but failure to do so would result in her being unable to take further steps in the proceedings without leave. The court also noted that the report would remain confidential and not be shared with Meshram's legal representatives or the respondents. No order was made as to costs, and liberty to apply was granted.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The hearings listed for 12 August 2025 and 1 and 2 September 2025 be vacated.
2. The applications to be considered at those hearings be adjourned to dates to be determined.
3. The appellant not take any further steps in these proceedings without leave of the Court.
4. By 4.00pm on 11 July 2025, the appellant’s legal representatives provide these orders and reasons to the appellant.
5. There be no order as to costs.
6. Liberty to apply.
THE COURT NOTES THAT:
7. The appellant’s legal representatives are to arrange for the appellant to meet with a consultant psychiatrist for the purpose of evaluating the appellant’s legal capacity to participate in, and give instructions for the purposes of, these proceedings.
8. The appellant is not compelled to attend the meeting with the consultant psychiatrist. However, if she were not to attend, the appellant would not be permitted to take further steps in these proceedings without leave of the Court.
9. As officers of the Court, the appellant’s legal representatives are entrusted with the responsibility of arranging and facilitating the meeting with the consultant psychiatrist, and providing the briefing questions and materials in accordance with these reasons.
10. The report of the consultant psychiatrist is to be provided directly by the consultant psychiatrist to the chambers of Justice Stellios. Unless otherwise ordered by the Court, it is not to be provided to the appellant’s legal representatives or the respondents or their legal representatives, and will remain confidential until further order of the Court.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
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.