Ferrigno v Qantas Airways Limited [2023] FCA 1044

Ferrigno v Qantas Airways Limited [2023] FCA 1044

The enduring powers of attorney did not entitle Mr Kalotihos to represent the applicants because they did not make him their alter ego and could not authorise conduct that a non-lawyer could not lawfully perform. Although the Court had power to dispense with r 4.01 and permit lay representation, the applicants had not adequately explained their inability to obtain legal representation, there was insufficient evidence that Mr Kalotihos was competent or familiar with Federal Court practice, and the Court was not satisfied that his representation would produce substantial efficiencies or that the interests of justice required leave.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Fair Work Division Proceeding Concerning Termination of Employment Following Non Compliance With COVID 19 Vaccination Policy / Interlocutory Application for Leave for a Non Lawyer to Represent the Applicants at Trial
Outcome
Interlocutory application dismissed.
Legal Topics
['non Lawyer Representation' 'enduring Powers of Attorney' 'dispensation From Federal Court Rules' 'fair Work Proceeding' 'covid 19 Vaccination Policy']
['practice and Procedure' 'employment and Industrial Relations' 'legal Profession Regulation'] ['non Lawyer Representation' 'enduring Powers of Attorney' 'dispensation From Federal Court Rules' 'fair Work Proceeding' 'covid 19 Vaccination Policy']

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

Fair Work Division Proceeding Concerning Termination of Employment Following Non Compliance With COVID 19 Vaccination Policy / Interlocutory Application for Leave for a Non Lawyer to Represent the Applicants at Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether enduring powers of attorney in favour of Mr Kalotihos entitled him to represent the applicants at trial.' 'Whether the Federal Court had power to permit a non-lawyer to represent a party despite r 4.01 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) and legal profession legislation.' 'Whether the interests of justice required leave for Mr Kalotihos to represent the applicants.']

Ratio Decidendi

The enduring powers of attorney did not entitle Mr Kalotihos to represent the applicants because they did not make him their alter ego and could not authorise conduct that a non-lawyer could not lawfully perform. Although the Court had power to dispense with r 4.01 and permit lay representation, the applicants had not adequately explained their inability to obtain legal representation, there was insufficient evidence that Mr Kalotihos was competent or familiar with Federal Court practice, and the Court was not satisfied that his representation would produce substantial efficiencies or that the interests of justice required leave.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory application dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The interlocutory application filed on 15 August 2023 is dismissed.']