Harradine v University of Adelaide [1990] HCA 62
A litigant who is also counsel cannot appear in both capacities; for a special leave application, the litigant must appear through counsel other than himself as required by O. 69A, r. 11 High Court Rules. As Mr. Harradine appeared in person and not by counsel, the Court could not hear him.
Source-derived case information.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Preliminary/order
- Outcome
- Matter stood over in list; order accordingly.
- Legal Topics
- ['right of Appearance' 'party Litigant Representation' 'application of Court Rules']
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Special Leave to Appeal / Preliminary/order
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether a party litigant who is also counsel may appear concurrently as both litigant and counsel in an application for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia' 'Proper mode of appearance for party litigants who are counsel under O. 69A, r. 11 of the High Court Rules']
Ratio Decidendi
A litigant who is also counsel cannot appear in both capacities; for a special leave application, the litigant must appear through counsel other than himself as required by O. 69A, r. 11 High Court Rules. As Mr. Harradine appeared in person and not by counsel, the Court could not hear him.
Court Disposition
Matter stood over in list; order accordingly.
Orders
- ['Order accordingly and matter stood over in list.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
8 paragraphs
High Court of Australia Brennan, Toohey and McHugh JJ. Harradine v University of Adelaide [1990] HCA 62
ORDER Order accordingly and matter stood over in list. Brennan J.
The applicant has been admitted to practise as a barrister and solicitor and is entitled to appear as counsel in this Court but here he is a party litigant and a party litigant must appear either personally or by counsel.
In New Brunswick and Canada Railway Co. v Conybeare [1] , Lord Westbury L.C. said with reference to an application by a party litigant who wished to appear as junior counsel: "But not both as party and counsel. The Respondent must elect to argue in person or not. There cannot be a mixture of the two characters." And so it is in this Court. If a litigant, being counsel, chooses to appear in person he is entitled to the privileges only of a litigant in person. Otherwise he must appear by counsel; that is by counsel other than himself. Here, O. 69A, r. 11 provides that: "An application for special leave to appeal shall be made to a Full Court by counsel." As Mr. Harradine appears here in person, not by counsel, we cannot hear him.
1. (1862) 9 H.L.C. 711, at p. 719 [11 E.R. 907, at p. 911]. Toohey J.
I agree with the construction placed on O. 69A, r. 11 of the High Court Rules by the presiding judge. For myself, I would reserve the question whether there is a power to dispense with that rule, whether in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court or under O. 64 relating to non-compliance with rules until that matter has been more fully argued.
McHugh J.
I agree with the reasons of Brennan J.