FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Simpson v Taylors Business Pty Ltd [2025] FCA 835
File number(s): VID 891 of 2023 Judgment of: BENNETT J Date of judgment: 21 July 2025 Date of publication of reasons: 23 July 2025 Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application by director to represent a company where director is not a lawyer – whether to exercise Court’s discretion to waive compliance with r 4.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) – application dismissed Legislation: Federal Court of Australia Act of 1976 (Cth)
Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth)
Cases cited: AA Shi Pty Ltd v Avbar Pty Ltd (No 4) [2010] FCA 878
Benjamin Hornigold Ltd v John Bridgeman Ltd (No 2) [2024] FCA 1041
Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd v Australian National University (2009) 239 CLR 175
JulieAnne Barrow Charitable Trust v Brisconnections Management Co Ltd [2009] FCA 412
Molnar Engineering Pty Ltd v Burns [1984] 3 FCR 68
Pharm-a-Care Laboratories Pty Ltd v Commonwealth of Australia (No 12) [2012] FCA 289
Bay Marine Pty Ltd v Clayton Country Properties Pty Ltd (1986) 8 NSWLR 104
Southcorp Brands Pty Ltd v Australia Rush Rich Winery Pty Ltd [2019] FCA 720; 369 ALR 299
Termi-Mesh Australia Pty Ltd v Josu Manufacturing Pty Ltd [1999] FCA 1241
Division: General Division Registry: Victoria National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations Sub-area: Commercial Contracts, Banking, Finance and Insurance Number of paragraphs: 31 Date of last submission/s: 23 June 2025 Date of hearing: 21 July 2025 Counsel for the Applicant: M Guo with P Kelly Solicitor for the Applicant: Consumer Action Law Centre Counsel for the Respondent: The Respondent was not represented. ORDERS
VID 891 of 2023 BETWEEN: LISA GAY SIMPSON
Applicant
AND: TAYLORS BUSINESS PTY LTD ACN 107 445 723
Respondent
ORDER MADE BY:
BENNETT J
DATE OF ORDER:
21 JULY 2025
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1.Mr Grainger’s application for leave to represent the Respondent is refused.
2.The Court directs that the following documents filed by the Respondent on 16 July 2025 be removed from the file:
(a)Defence;
(b)Outline of submissions; and
(c)Affidavit of Graeme John Grainger affirmed on 16 July 2025.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered ex tempore, revised from transcript)BENNETT J:
I have before me an application of Mr Grainger, the sole director and shareholder of the Respondent, Taylors Business Pty Ltd (Taylors), to represent that company both in the applications he seeks to advance today, and in defending the applications that the Applicant has brought today, and in the proceedings more broadly, including by the filing of documents.
Proceedings were issued against Taylors on 25 October 2023. The proceedings concern allegations that Taylors engaged in unconscionable conduct and unlicensed lending, by its operation of a pawnbroking business.
Currently, the sole director of Taylors is Mr…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Simpson v Taylors Business Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2025] FCA 835
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue the Court had to address was whether to exercise its discretion to permit Mr Grainger, who is not a legal practitioner, to represent the company in Court. This issue arose because r 4.01(2) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) generally requires that a party to proceedings be represented by a legal practitioner. The Court was required to determine if exceptional circumstances existed that warranted a departure from this rule. The Court considered the nature of the proceedings, the complexity of the issues, and the potential prejudice to the plaintiff if the application were to be granted.
The Court found that there were no exceptional circumstances justifying a departure from the requirement that parties be represented by a legal practitioner. The Court considered the complexity of the issues involved in the proceedings, the potential for prejudice to the plaintiff if the application were to be granted, and the fact that the company had access to legal representation through other means. Given these considerations, the Court decided that it was not appropriate to exercise its discretion to permit Mr Grainger to represent the company. The Court accordingly dismissed the application and directed that certain documents filed by the company be removed from the file.
The Court's orders included the refusal of Mr Grainger's application for leave to represent the company and the removal of specified documents from the file. These orders reflect the Court's determination that the application did not meet the threshold for a departure from the general requirement for legal representation in federal court proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Mr Grainger’s application for leave to represent the Respondent is refused.
2. The Court directs that the following documents filed by the Respondent on 16 July 2025 be removed from the file:
(a) Defence;
(b) Outline of submissions; and
(c) Affidavit of Graeme John Grainger affirmed on 16 July 2025.
Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.