Thompson v Kane (No. 2) [2012] FCA 763

Thompson v Kane (No. 2) [2012] FCA 763

Leave for Mr Bell to represent Mr Thompson was refused because, having regard to the way Mr Bell framed the application and drafted Mr Thompson's affidavit, and taking into account judicial observations about Mr Bell's prior conduct and the inflammatory, unbalanced and disproportionate language used in the affidavit, the Court was not satisfied that the interests of justice would be served by granting leave. The Court held that a non-lawyer seeking leave to assist a litigant must be fit and proper and capable of assisting the Court and the litigant in a disciplined, dispassionate and useful way; Mr Bell did not satisfy that requirement in the circumstances.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 July 2012
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Proceeding Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) and the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) With Interlocutory Applications / Determination of Preliminary Application for Leave for a Non Legally Qualified Person to Represent the Applicant, and Orders on the Commonwealth's Joinder and Adjourned Dismissal Application
Outcome
The Commonwealth of Australia was joined as third respondent; leave for Mr Ian Bruce Bell to appear for Mr Thompson was refused; the Commonwealth's dismissal application was adjourned; Mr Thompson was referred for legal assistance and directed to file an affidavit identifying the decisions or orders sought to be...
Legal Topics
['leave for Non Lawyer Representation' 'fit and Proper Person' 'joinder' 'dismissal or Setting Aside of Originating Application' 'judicial Review of Decisions of Judicial Officers or Court Officers']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law' 'federal Jurisdiction'] ['leave for Non Lawyer Representation' 'fit and Proper Person' 'joinder' 'dismissal or Setting Aside of Originating Application' 'judicial Review of Decisions of Judicial Officers or Court Officers']

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

Judicial Review Proceeding Under S 39 B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (cth) and the Administrative Decisions (judicial Review) Act 1977 (cth) With Interlocutory Applications / Determination of Preliminary Application for Leave for a Non Legally Qualified Person to Represent the Applicant, and Orders on the Commonwealth's Joinder and Adjourned Dismissal Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Commonwealth of Australia should be joined as a respondent in the proceeding.' "Whether leave should be granted for Mr Ian Bruce Bell, a person not admitted as a legal practitioner, to appear for and represent Mr Thompson on the Commonwealth's interlocutory application to dismiss or set aside the Originating Application." 'Whether the Originating Application should be set aside under r 13.01(1)(a) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 on the grounds contended for by the Commonwealth, namely that neither challenged decision is a decision of an administrative character for the purposes of the Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act 1977 (Cth) and that no constitutional writ lies under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth).' 'Whether Mr Thompson should be referred for legal assistance and required to identify more precisely the decisions or orders sought to be reviewed.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave for Mr Bell to represent Mr Thompson was refused because, having regard to the way Mr Bell framed the application and drafted Mr Thompson's affidavit, and taking into account judicial observations about Mr Bell's prior conduct and the inflammatory, unbalanced and disproportionate language used in the affidavit, the Court was not satisfied that the interests of justice would be served by granting leave. The Court held that a non-lawyer seeking leave to assist a litigant must be fit and proper and capable of assisting the Court and the litigant in a disciplined, dispassionate and useful way; Mr Bell did not satisfy that requirement in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

The Commonwealth of Australia was joined as third respondent; leave for Mr Ian Bruce Bell to appear for Mr Thompson was refused; the Commonwealth's dismissal application was adjourned; Mr Thompson was referred for legal assistance and directed to file an affidavit identifying the decisions or orders sought to be...

Orders

  • ['The Commonwealth of Australia be joined as a third respondent in the proceeding.' 'Leave is refused for Mr Ian Bruce Bell to appear on behalf of Mr Thompson on the Interlocutory Application for dismissal of the Originating Application filed on 10 April 2012.' 'The Interlocutory Application filed on 21 June 2012 is...