Rowley v Abacus Associates Pty Ltd
[2015] QCAT 197
•8 May 2015
| CITATION: | Rowley v Abacus Associates Pty Ltd & Anor [2015] QCAT 197 |
| PARTIES: | Graham Milton Rowley t/as APL/QBC (Applicant) |
| v | |
| Abacus Associates Pty Ltd Ian Prescott (Respondents) |
| APPLICATION NUMBER: | MCDO2200-14 |
| MATTER TYPE: | Other minor civil dispute matters |
| HEARING DATE: | On the papers |
| HEARD AT: | Brisbane |
| DECISION OF: | Adjudicator Bertelsen |
| DELIVERED ON: | 8 May 2015 |
| DELIVERED AT: | Brisbane |
| ORDERS MADE: | 1. Application by respondent for leave to be represented is refused. |
| CATCHWORDS: | Self representation – representation by a third party – complexity of proceeding – necessity for representation |
APPEARANCES:
This matter was heard and determined on the papers pursuant to s 32 of the Queensland Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2009 (Qld) (QCAT Act).
REASONS FOR DECISION
Application
On 24 March 2015 the respondent made application to the Tribunal for leave to be represented by a legal practitioner Nhu Huynh legal practitioner of HWL Ebsworth Lawyers. Submissions were called for from each of the parties.
Determination
The respondents submissions after giving a relatively detailed history of this proceeding and an associated proceeding, centred around the complexity of the issues at hand.
Whilst there may be a number of issues here there is no reason to suggest that legal representation is required for their determination. The mere fact that the respondent has been receiving legal advice from HWL Ebsworth Lawyers and hence their familiarity with the subject matter of this proceeding that of itself is not sufficient to ground an application for legal representation.
Many applications that come before the Tribunal have been preceded by parties self representing having received legal advice prior. Whether or not a party has the benefit of prior legal advice is a matter for that party.
0
0
0