Step v Collins & Ors - [2007] NTSC 35

Step v Collins & Ors [2007] NTSC 35
PARTIES:STEP, ANTHEA KANDAPUMA

v
COLLINS, JOHN JOSEPH

HURLEY, JULIANNE KAYE

ZYLSTRA, SALLY ANNE

GOLDSTEIN, DEAN ANDREW

COOK, STEPHEN JOHN

AND

COMMISSIONER OF NT POLICE

TITLE OF COURT:  SUPREME COURT OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  SUPREME COURT OF THE TERRITORY EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:No 183 of 2003 (20327300)

No 131 of 2004 (20422397)
DELIVERED:  23 May 2007
HEARING DATES:  10 May 2007
JUDGMENT OF:  MILDREN J
CATCHWORDS:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURES – Appearance – application by lay advocate to appear for unrepresented litigant – Court’s discretion to refuse or permit representation – relevant principles – application refused
Statutes:

Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act, s 4(2), s 10
Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act, s 13(2)(a), s 13A, s 23
Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, s 12(2)
Supreme Court Act, s 75
Supreme Court Rules, O 21.02(2), O 21.03(b)
Citations:
Damjanovic v Maley (2003) 195 ALR 256
REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Plaintiff:Va’clav Step (Lay Advocate)
First Defendant:  No Appearance
Second – Sixth Defendants:         E Hutton
Solicitors:
Plaintiff:Self-Represented
First Defendant:  No Appearance
Second – Sixth Defendants:         Hunt & Hunt
Judgment category classification:    B
Number of pages:  13

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
Step v Collins & Ors [2007] NTSC 35

No. 183 of 2003 (20327300) & No 131 of 2004 (20422397)
BETWEEN:

ANTHEA KANDAPUMA STEP

Plaintiff

AND:

JOHN JOSEPH COLLINS
JULIANNE KAYE HURLEY
SALLY ANNE ZYLSTRA
DEAN ANDREW GOLDSTEIN
STEPHEN JOHN COOK and
COMMISSIONER OF NT POLICE

Defendants

CORAM: MILDREN J
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Delivered 23 May 2007)

This is an application by the plaintiff for an order that the plaintiff’s father, Mr Va’clav Step, be given leave to represent the plaintiff as her lay advocate.
This action is brought by the plaintiff for her own benefit and for the benefit of a number of other relatives of the deceased pursuant to the provisions of the Compensation (Fatal Injuries) Act. The plaintiff also claims damages at common law for nervous shock. The plaintiff claims that on 3 October 2001 the first defendant, John Joseph Collins, battered the plaintiff’s mother inside a house at 44 Brolga Street, Wulagi. The battery was severe and resulted in the deceased bleeding to death from a ruptured spleen. Collins has not entered an appearance to the proceedings. I have drawn to the plaintiff’s attention the provisions of Order 21.02(2) and Order 21.03(b) of the Supreme Court Rules and s 12(2) of the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act which may entitle the plaintiff to obtain default judgment against the defendant Collins for damages to be assessed without resulting in any release to the other defendants from any liability that they may eventually be found to have. The plaintiff has indicated through her father, Mr Va’clav Step, that as the plaintiff has recovered $25,000 under the provisions of the Crimes (Victims Assistance) Act as a result of Mr Collins’ behaviour, she does not wish to pursue Mr Collins any further because she believes that any…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Step v Collins & Ors

Details

AGLC: Step v Collins [2007] NTSC 35
Case: [2007] NTSC 35
Decision Date: 23 May 2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, the case of Step v Collins & Ors involved an application by a lay advocate to appear for an unrepresented litigant. The central issue was the court's discretion to permit or refuse lay representation, considering the principles that guide such decisions. The applicant, who was not a legal practitioner, sought to represent the unrepresented party in ongoing proceedings. The court was required to determine whether the application should be allowed, focusing on the potential for the proceedings to be conducted effectively, efficiently, and expeditiously.

The court examined the history of the litigation to assess whether allowing lay representation would contribute to the effective, efficient, and expeditious conduct of the proceedings. Given the complex nature of the case and the history of the litigation, the court found that the proceedings had not been managed in a way that suggested they would proceed effectively, efficiently, and expeditiously with lay representation. The court concluded that the applicant's involvement would likely exacerbate these issues, leading to a refusal of the application.

In reaching its decision, the court highlighted the importance of ensuring that legal proceedings are conducted in a manner that is conducive to a fair and efficient resolution of disputes. The court noted that while lay representation can be permissible in certain circumstances, the specific context of this case did not support such an arrangement. The application was refused on the basis that the history of the litigation did not indicate that the proceedings would be conducted effectively, efficiently, and expeditiously with lay representation. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, and the history of the litigation remained a critical factor in the court's decision-making process.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed. The history of the litigation was not indicative that proceedings would be conducted effectively, efficiently and expeditiously

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.