Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] NSWSC 1108

Maksacheff v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2016] NSWSC 1108

Leave was granted to Mr Andrews because, despite the general difficulties with non-lawyer advocates, Mr Maksacheff's difficulty speaking, the absence of a fee, the possibility that Mr Andrews could assist in identifying issues, and the seriousness of the defendants' summary dismissal application made representation in the interests of justice. Leave was refused to Mr Evans because he was potentially a witness and therefore could not have the independence required of an advocate.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure Application for Non Lawyers to Represent Plaintiffs in Civil Proceedings / Preliminary Application for Leave to Appear Determined When the Defendants' Summary Dismissal Application Was Listed for Hearing
Outcome
Leave granted to Mr Andrews to appear; leave refused to Mr Evans.
Legal Topics
['non Lawyer Representation' 'right of Audience' 'amicus Curiae' 'summary Dismissal' 'power of Sale Under Mortgage']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'contract' 'banking and Finance'] ['non Lawyer Representation' 'right of Audience' 'amicus Curiae' 'summary Dismissal' 'power of Sale Under Mortgage']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Practice and Procedure Application for Non Lawyers to Represent Plaintiffs in Civil Proceedings / Preliminary Application for Leave to Appear Determined When the Defendants' Summary Dismissal Application Was Listed for Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for Mr Mark Andrews, a non-lawyer, to appear for the plaintiffs.' 'Whether leave should be granted for Mr Anthony Evans, a non-lawyer and potential witness, to appear for the plaintiffs.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave was granted to Mr Andrews because, despite the general difficulties with non-lawyer advocates, Mr Maksacheff's difficulty speaking, the absence of a fee, the possibility that Mr Andrews could assist in identifying issues, and the seriousness of the defendants' summary dismissal application made representation in the interests of justice. Leave was refused to Mr Evans because he was potentially a witness and therefore could not have the independence required of an advocate.

Court Disposition

Leave granted to Mr Andrews to appear; leave refused to Mr Evans.

Orders

  • ['Grant leave to Mr Andrews to appear.' 'Decline leave to Mr Evans to appear.']