Wilkinson v Wilson Security Pty Ltd (No 2)

Wilkinson brought a representative proceeding against Wilson Security Pty Ltd on behalf of over 200 group members, all of whom had been employed by the respondent as security guards in Western Australia. Wilkinson, who appeared in person, did not object to the court's previous declassing orders and the group members expressed a willingness to allow Wilkinson to continue to conduct the proceedings. Wilson Security submitted that Wilkinson should not be allowed to continue to represent the group members because he was not a lawyer, had not filed an affidavit of merit, and had not been appointed by the group members as their representative. The court was required to determine whether Wilkinson, as a litigant in person, could continue to act as the representative of the group members in the proceeding.

The court noted that the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) does not provide a mechanism for a litigant in person to be appointed as a representative in a proceeding. However, the court also found that the group members had expressed a willingness to allow Wilkinson to continue to act on their behalf. The court considered this to be a compelling factor and concluded that it should not interfere with the group members' wishes, despite the absence of a formal appointment. The court found that Wilkinson could continue to represent the group members, but that the proceeding should be declassed.

Accordingly, the court made orders declassing the proceeding and setting aside the previous declassing orders. The court ordered that Wilkinson could continue to represent the group members in the proceeding. The court also made orders resetting the limitation period and requiring the respondents to notify the group members of the court's orders. The court further made orders for costs and adjourned the case management hearing pending the conclusion of mediation.