Mulhern's Properties Inc v Bank of Queensland

Mulhern’s Properties Inc, an unrepresented corporation, filed proceedings against the Bank of Queensland in the Federal Court of Australia. The corporation sought damages for breach of contract, deceit, and negligence. The bank filed an interlocutory application seeking leave for Mulhern’s Properties to be represented by a lawyer. This application was refused, and the bank applied for the corporation’s Statement of Claim to be struck out due to the poor quality of the pleadings and the unrepresented status of the corporation. The corporation opposed the application, arguing that the pleadings were sufficient and that it should be allowed to represent itself. The court was required to decide whether the application to strike out the Statement of Claim should be granted, and if the application for leave to be represented by a lawyer should be allowed.

The court held that it was not appropriate to entertain an application for summary judgment without giving the corporation an opportunity to amend its Statement of Claim with the assistance of a lawyer. The court also held that it was not appropriate to strike out the Statement of Claim in its entirety without giving the corporation an opportunity to file a fresh Statement of Claim that complied with the rules of the court. The court held that considerable caution must be exercised before any court precludes a litigant from placing before a court a properly articulated cause of action. The court held that the corporation’s Statement of Claim was poorly organised and badly articulated, and that a lawyer may be better able to discern a cause of action than an unrepresented litigant. However, the court held that it was not appropriate to strike out the Statement of Claim in its entirety without giving the corporation an opportunity to file a fresh Statement of Claim that complied with the rules of the court.

The Statement of Claim filed on 18 December 2012 was struck out in its entirety. The Interlocutory Application filed by the Applicant on 23 January 2013 and the Interlocutory Application filed by the Applicant on 11 March 2013 were both dismissed. The Interlocutory Application filed by the Respondent on 5 March 2013 was dismissed, save as to order 1. The Applicant was to pay the costs of the Respondent. The proceeding was stood over to 9.30 am on Thursday 30 May 2013 for the purpose of giving directions as to the future conduct of the proceeding.