Roy v O'Neill

The High Court of Australia considered the appeal in *Roy v O'Neill*. The dispute concerned the proper interpretation of section 101(1) of the *Civil Procedure Act 2010* (Vic) (the Act), which provides that a party to civil proceedings may be required to attend a compulsory conference. The appellant, Mr Roy, had been ordered to attend a compulsory conference by the County Court of Victoria, but he failed to do so. The respondent, Ms O'Neill, sought to have Mr Roy's defence struck out as a consequence of his non-attendance.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether section 101(1) of the Act imposed a personal obligation on a party to attend a compulsory conference, or whether it merely conferred a power on the court to order attendance. This distinction was critical because if the obligation was personal, a failure to attend could lead to sanctions such as the striking out of pleadings. If it was merely a power, the court would need to consider the appropriate response to non-compliance.

The High Court held that section 101(1) of the Act imposes a personal obligation on a party to attend a compulsory conference when ordered to do so by the court. Their Honours reasoned that the language of the provision, particularly the phrase "may be required to attend," indicated a power vested in the court to impose a mandatory obligation. Furthermore, the purpose of compulsory conferences, as outlined in the Act, was to facilitate settlement and efficient dispute resolution, which would be undermined if parties could simply disregard attendance orders without consequence. The Court affirmed that the power to strike out a defence for non-compliance with such an order was a legitimate sanction available to the court under the Act.