Sahore v Ahmad

[2022] ACTCA 53

SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
COURT OF APPEAL

Case Title:

Ahmad v Sahore (No 2)

Citation:

[2022] ACTCA 53

Hearing Date:

21 September 2022

DecisionDate:

21 September 2022

Before:

McCallum CJ

Decision:

(1)  Refuse leave for Ms Judith Keys to appear for Mr Ahmad as a McKenzie friend in the proceedings;

(2)  Application in proceedings to issue a subpoena to the ACT Bar Association is dismissed;

(3)  The remaining applications in proceedings are stood over to 7 October 2022 at 9:00am before McCallum CJ.

Catchwords:

PROCEDURE — MISCELLANEOUS PROCEDURAL MATTERS — Application to appear as a McKenzie friend for appellant —Importance of protecting parties – Undesirability of granting leave to an unaccredited, uninsured advocate — Where proposed McKenzie friend in a position of conflict due to involvement in the proceedings at first instance — Where proposed McKenzie friend has contributed to delay in proceedings and exposed appellant to adverse costs orders

Legislation Cited:

Court Procedures Act2004 (ACT), s 65

Court Procedures Rules2006 (ACT), s 5436(3)

Legal Profession Act2006 (ACT)

Cases Cited:

Damjanovic v Maley [2002] NSWCA 230

McKenzie v McKenzie [1970] 3 All ER 1034
Polleycutt v Aldcroft [2019] ACTSC 174

Sahore v Ahmad [2021] ACTSC 30

Parties:

Waqar Ahmad ( Appellant)

Honey Sahore ( Respondent)

Peter Glover (Proposed Second Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel

Self-represented ( Appellant)

C Holloway ( Respondent)

K Pattenden (Proposed Second Respondent)

Solicitors

Aulich Civil Lawyers ( Respondent)

United Legal (Proposed Second Respondent)

File Number:

ACTCA 28 of 2022

Decision under appeal: 

Court:  Supreme Court

Before:  Kennett J

Date of Decision:          26 April 2022

Case Title:  Sahore v Ahmad

Court File Number:      SC 325 of 2018

McCALLUM CJ:

1. This is an appeal from orders made by Kennett J by consent on 26 April 2022.  The orders were entered by consent because the proceedings resolved on the first day of the hearing in circumstances to which I will return.  The orders were as follows:

(1)    That there be judgment for the plaintiff in the sum of $40,000;

(2) That the partnership between the plaintiff and the defendant is dissolved with effect from 9 September 2014;

(3)    The defendant is to pay the plaintiff's costs as agreed or assessed.

1. Mr Ahmad was the defendant against whom that judgment was entered.  He appeals from all of the orders made by Kennett J.  Before the Court today are six applications in the appeal proceedings.  Before identifying the issues raised by those applications, it is necessary to address a preliminary matter as to representation involving the role of Ms Keys.

1. Ms Keys has at various times either formally or informally assisted Mr Ahmad in the conduct of his proceedings, both at first instance and in the appeal.  She was formally admitted as a legal practitioner and held a practicing certificate until the beginning of 2021.  Since then, her participation in the proceedings has been somewhat chaotic.  It may be seen from a published judgment of the Court that she is recorded as having appeared as Counsel…