Adler Mallach Holdings Pty Limited v Robert Samuel Robertson & Ors [2002] NSWSC 998

There were no exceptional circumstances to justify court dispensation from the requirement that a corporation carry on proceedings only by solicitor, and the Legal Profession Act amendments do not override the Supreme Court Rules. Application for leave to continue proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor was refused.

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 23 October 2002
Procedural Posture: Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Motion Regarding Corporate Representation
Outcome: Leave to corporate plaintiff to continue the proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor refused.
Legal Topics: ['corporate Representation' 'direct Access to Counsel' 'dispensation of Supreme Court Rules']

['practice and Procedure' 'corporations'] ['corporate Representation' 'direct Access to Counsel' 'dispensation of Supreme Court Rules']

Source-derived case record

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

Procedural Posture

Equity Proceedings / Interlocutory Motion Regarding Corporate Representation

Legal Issues

1 ['Whether a corporate plaintiff may continue proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor' 'Whether the Court should dispense with Part 4 Rule 4A of Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) in favour of representation by barrister alone']

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Leave to corporate plaintiff to continue the proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor refused.

Orders

['Leave to plaintiff to continue proceedings otherwise than by solicitor refused.']

About this LexChat collection

Publisher and coverage

LexChat is published by Esheria. Coverage reflects the case law currently mapped from identified source collections; it may be incomplete, delayed, or later corrected. The official source controls where it differs from this research page.

AI and research method

Source-derived facts are shown separately from AI-generated material. If an AI summary is available, it is explicitly labelled and remains a non-authoritative research aid.

Corrections and reporting

Report a source mismatch, factual issue, personal-data concern, or licensing question to support@esheria.co.ke. Include this page's URL and the supporting official source so the record can be reviewed, corrected, restricted, or withdrawn.

Legal-information disclaimer

LexChat provides legal information and research tools, not legal advice. Verify currency, status, citations, and jurisdiction with authoritative sources and a qualified professional where appropriate.