Solomons Franchise Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Taydex Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 382

Solomons Franchise Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Taydex Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 382

Mr. Parr failed to address deficiencies identified previously by Kiefel J, including proof of proper authorisation and particularisation of the company's financial inability to afford legal representation. The material submitted was still insufficient and did not take the Court fully into confidence as required. The application for leave must therefore be dismissed.

Parties
First Applicant: Solomons Franchise Systems Pty. Ltd.; Second Applicant: No. 1 Raberem Pty. Ltd.; Third Applicant: No. 2 Raberem Pty. Ltd.; Fourth Applicant: No. 3 Raberem Pty. Ltd.; First Respondent: Taydex Pty. Ltd.; Second Respondent: Michael Roy Parr; Third Respondent: Clive John Walker
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 June 1995
Procedural Posture
General Division / Application for Leave to Represent Company; Hearing of Notice of Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs ordered
Legal Topics
Leave for Non Lawyer Representation, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Leave for Non Lawyer Representation Costs Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Solomons Franchise Systems Pty. Ltd.

First Applicant

No. 1 Raberem Pty. Ltd.

Second Applicant

No. 2 Raberem Pty. Ltd.

Third Applicant

No. 3 Raberem Pty. Ltd.

Fourth Applicant

Taydex Pty. Ltd.

First Respondent

Michael Roy Parr

Second Respondent

Clive John Walker

Third Respondent

Procedural Posture

General Division / Application for Leave to Represent Company; Hearing of Notice of Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr. Parr should be granted leave under O. 9, r. 1 Federal Court Rules to represent Taydex Pty. Ltd.
  2. 2 Whether Mr. Parr should pay costs and whether costs should be taxed on indemnity basis

Ratio Decidendi

Mr. Parr failed to address deficiencies identified previously by Kiefel J, including proof of proper authorisation and particularisation of the company's financial inability to afford legal representation. The material submitted was still insufficient and did not take the Court fully into confidence as required. The application for leave must therefore be dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs ordered

Orders

  • The notice of motion be dismissed.
  • The second respondent (Mr. Parr) pay the first applicant's costs of hearing the notice of motion, to be taxed.