Sebie v Pham (No 2)

In *Sebie v Pham (No 2)*, the Court of Appeal of New South Wales considered a Notice of Motion filed by the appellant, who was represented by legal practitioners. The legal representatives indicated they were unable to advance any submissions in support of the motion. The Court also had significant doubts as to whether the party who signed the motion had actually filed it, noting the party’s inability to answer fundamental questions from the Bench or present any arguments supporting the motion, and observing correspondence originating from a misspelled email address.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the Notice of Motion should be dismissed, and if so, what order for costs should be made. A secondary issue, arising from a misconceived attempt to circumvent the requirement for a company to be represented by legal practitioners, involved an application to reinstate the company as the appellant after it had attempted to join its director instead.

The Court found that the proceedings had been trifled with, leading to the dismissal of the Notice of Motion. The Court applied principles of civil procedure concerning the proper conduct of litigation and the consequences of failing to comply with procedural requirements or engaging in conduct that wastes court resources. The Court also addressed the attempt to circumvent the rule requiring a company to be represented by legal practitioners.

The Court ordered that the Notice of Motion be dismissed with indemnity costs. These costs were to be paid out of the fund held by the Court in the proceedings that were the subject of the application for leave to appeal.