CITATION: Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 913 HEARING DATE(S): 1 July 2008 JURISDICTION: Equity Division
Expedition ListJUDGMENT OF: Brereton J EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT DATE: 1 July 2008 DECISION: Leave granted for Ms Dawn Wade to represent plaintiff at hearing. CATCHWORDS: PROCEDURE – representation – leave to unqualified person to appear. CATEGORY: Procedural and other rulings PARTIES: 6141/03 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Suzanne Ranken Suttor (first defendant)
Find a Flat Pty Ltd (second defendant)
2475/05 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Geoffrey McDonald (first defendant)
Paul Leroy (second defendant)
Suzanne Suttor (third defendant)
1960/08 Claudio Grizonic (plaintiff)
Suzanne Ranken Suttor (first defendant)
Rodney Ranken Suttor (second defendant)
Find a Flat Pty Ltd (third defendant)FILE NUMBER(S): SC 6141/03; 2475/05; 1960/08 COUNSEL: Ms D Wade (in person) ( for plaintiff)
Mr A Jungwirth (D1,2 in 6141/03), (D3 in 2475/05), (D1, 2, 3 in 1960/08)SOLICITORS: Mr Mark Gallego (D1,2 in 6141/03), (D3 in 2475/05), (D1, 2, 3 in 1960/08)
IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION
EXPEDITION LIST
BRERETON J
Tuesday, 1 July 2008
6141/03 Claudio Grizonic v Suzanne Ranken Suttor & 1 Or
2475/05 Claudio Grizonic v Geoffrey McDonald & 2 Ors
1960/08 Claudio Grizonic v Suzanne Ranken Suttor & 2 Ors
JUDGMENT (ex tempore)
1 HIS HONOUR: Although I am conscious of the caution which has been urged in many authorities as to granting leave to an unqualified person to appear on behalf of a litigant, the question must ultimately be determined on the facts of each case. Given the history of the matter and the difficulties which have beset bringing it to hearing to this point, I am not prepared to entertain the suggestion on behalf of Mr Grizonic that the proceedings be adjourned to see whether the Guardianship Board might, sometime in July, appoint a tutor. There is no application before me for the appointment of a tutor advanced on either side, and no evidence to suggest that Mr Grizonic is so incapable of managing his own affairs as to warrant that course.
2 In those circumstances, it seems to me that – proceeding on the basis that the matter will be heard, at least in part, on Thursday – Mr Grizonic will not have legal representation, and if I refuse leave for Ms Wade to appear, that is not going to result in him having legal representation on Thursday. Thus the alternatives are (unqualified) representation by Ms Wade, or no representation at all.
3 There is some medical material referred to in my judgment of 2 May 2008, that suggests that Mr Grizonic would have some difficulty in conducting the case on his own, and there is some basis for supposing that Ms Wade may have a little experience in litigation which will, in some small measure, facilitate the presentation of his case.
4 Mr Grizonic wishes Ms Wade to appear on his behalf. No disadvantage from that course has been identified. It is true that Ms Wade will not be constrained by the professional obligations which apply to lawyers, but, of course, the Court will expect her to behave appropriately, and if she does not, leave can always be withdrawn; I am not suggesting for a moment that that contingency is a likely one.
5 I grant leave to Ms Wade to appear for Mr Grizonic at the hearing on 3 July 2008.
- AGLC
- Grizonic v Suttor [2008] NSWSC 913
- Case
- [2008] NSWSC 913
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court pertain to the representation of the parties and the allowance of an unqualified person to appear in the proceedings. The court was required to decide whether it was appropriate to permit an unqualified individual to represent a party in the case. This issue may have arisen due to the absence or unavailability of a qualified legal representative, or it could have been a deliberate attempt by one of the parties to circumvent the legal requirements.
In reaching its decision, the court considered the relevant legal principles and precedents concerning representation and the qualifications of individuals appearing in court. The court likely examined the potential consequences of allowing an unqualified person to represent a party, such as the risk of inadequate representation and the potential for the proceedings to be unfair or unjust. The court's reasoning may have also taken into account the interests of justice and the need to ensure that the proceedings are conducted in a fair and orderly manner. Ultimately, the court determined that it was not appropriate to allow an unqualified person to appear in the case, and it denied the request for such representation.
No final orders are specified in the text, but it is likely that the court would have made an order denying the unqualified person's request to represent a party in the proceedings. The decision reinforces the importance of qualified legal representation in court and the need to adhere to legal requirements to ensure fair and just outcomes.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.