Hadgkiss v Aldin [2006] FCA 1638

Hadgkiss v Aldin [2006] FCA 1638

Leave should be granted to Paul Anthony King to represent the seventy-second respondent in this proceeding as exceptional circumstances exist: complexity of case, respondent's difficulties, advocate’s qualifications and insurance, and consent of applicant.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2006
Procedural Posture
Workplace Relations Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Be Represented by Advocate
Outcome
Leave granted for lay advocate to represent seventy-second respondent until further order.
Legal Topics
['representation Before Court' 'leave for Non Legally Qualified Advocate' 'statutory Interpretation']
['workplace Relations' 'industrial Law'] ['representation Before Court' 'leave for Non Legally Qualified Advocate' 'statutory Interpretation']

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

Workplace Relations Proceeding / Interlocutory Application for Leave to Be Represented by Advocate

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether statutory provisions preclude grant of leave for person to act as advocate' 'Whether circumstances are exceptional or special to warrant the grant of leave' 'Whether s 854 of Australian Workplace Relations Act 1996 applies' "Interaction between statutory procedural provisions and court's inherent powers"]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave should be granted to Paul Anthony King to represent the seventy-second respondent in this proceeding as exceptional circumstances exist: complexity of case, respondent's difficulties, advocate’s qualifications and insurance, and consent of applicant.

Court Disposition

Leave granted for lay advocate to represent seventy-second respondent until further order.

Orders

  • ['Leave is granted to Paul Anthony King to represent the seventy-second respondent (Paul Scott Ruiz) as his advocate in this proceeding until further order.']