Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales v Curtin and McGuirk; Curtin v Vice-Chancellor, University of New South Wales (Interlocutory Applications)

In this case, the applicants, Curtin and McGuirk, sought an interlocutory application in relation to proceedings against the respondent, the Vice-Chancellor of the University of New South Wales. The matter pertained to the costs incurred due to the applicants' disruption of the proceedings and their application to be assisted by a McKenzie friend, which the respondent opposed. The application was heard by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT). The central legal issue before the AAT was whether the applicants should be permitted to incur costs due to their disruption of the proceedings and whether one applicant should be allowed to be assisted by another as a McKenzie friend. The AAT found that the applicants' actions disrupted the proceedings, justifying the imposition of costs. The Tribunal was also tasked with determining whether the applicants should be allowed to have one of them assist as a McKenzie friend, which the Tribunal refused.

The AAT considered the nature and extent of the disruption caused by the applicants, and their impact on the proceedings. The Tribunal concluded that the costs incurred by the respondent due to the disruption were reasonable and justified. Additionally, the AAT examined the role of a McKenzie friend and the potential for undue influence or unfair advantage if one applicant were to assist the other in this capacity. The Tribunal found that permitting such assistance would be inappropriate in these circumstances, given the potential for bias and the need for procedural fairness. Consequently, the AAT denied the application to have McGuirk assist Curtin as a McKenzie friend.

The AAT ordered that Curtin and McGuirk pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings held on 26 June 2006. The Tribunal did not permit McGuirk to assist Curtin as a McKenzie friend. The costs were to be assessed if the parties could not agree on the amount, according to the Legal Profession Act 2004. This decision highlights the importance of procedural fairness and the limitations on the role of McKenzie friends in legal proceedings.