Wood v Lee-Joe (No.3)

In *Wood v Lee-Joe (No.3)*, the applicant, Ms. Wood, sought to be appointed as a litigation guardian for Ms. Lee-Joe in proceedings commenced under section 46PO(1) of the *Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986* (Cth). Ms. Wood, who had been a carer for Ms. Lee-Joe, had lodged a complaint of unlawful discrimination with the Australian Human Rights Commission on Ms. Lee-Joe's behalf. Following the termination of that complaint, Ms. Wood initiated proceedings within the prescribed 60-day period, purportedly acting as carer for Ms. Lee-Joe. The proceedings were heard by Judge Manousaridis in the Federal Court of Australia.

The central legal issues before the court were whether Ms. Wood should be appointed as a litigation guardian for Ms. Lee-Joe, and consequently, whether Ms. Lee-Joe should be substituted as the applicant in the proceedings. A further issue arose regarding whether Ms. Lee-Joe should be permitted to bring her application for substitution as the applicant, notwithstanding that the 60-day period for commencing proceedings after the termination of the Commission complaint had expired. The court also considered whether proceedings for contempt, initiated by Ms. Wood, should be dismissed due to a lack of reasonable prospects of success.

Judge Manousaridis determined that Ms. Lee-Joe was not a person in need of a litigation guardian, as she had not demonstrated intermittent and unpredictable periods of incapacity to adequately instruct the conduct of proceedings. The court found that Ms. Lee-Joe had the capacity to instruct her legal representatives. Consequently, Ms. Wood's application for appointment as a litigation guardian was dismissed. As a result, the court also refused to substitute Ms. Lee-Joe as the applicant in the proceedings, and the contempt proceedings were dismissed on the basis that Ms. Wood had no reasonable prospects of successfully prosecuting them.