Worldwide Enterprises Pty Ltd v Silberman & Anor

(2010) 26 VR 595; [2010] VSCA 17

Victorian Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Representation of corporations
3. › Requirement for solicitor
4. › Application by lay director for leave to appear on behalf of company
5. › Whether stay pending appointment of solicitor final or interlocutory
6. › Factors relevant to exercise of discretion
7. › Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), r 1.17(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Representation of corporations
3. › Relationship between court rules requiring solicitor and statutory derivative actions
4. › Whether ss 236 and 237 of Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) 'otherwise provide' within meaning of r 1.17(1)
5. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), ss 236, 237
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Security for costs
3. › Corporate plaintiff unable to meet costs
4. › Whether existence of professional indemnity insurance relevant
5. › Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), s 1335(1)
6. › Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005 (Vic), r 62.02(1)(b)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Interlocutory orders
3. › Whether order staying proceedings pending appointment of solicitor is final or interlocutory
4. › Test for characterisation of orders as final or interlocutory

Quick Take

A corporate litigant seeking to have a lay director appear on its behalf under r 1.17(1) must satisfy the court having regard to nine identified factors including the complexity of the dispute, the capacity of the proposed representative, the effect on court resources, and the interests of other parties. The derivative action provisions in ss 236 and 237 of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) do not 'otherwise provide' so as to displace r 1.17(1). An order staying proceedings pending appointment of a solicitor is interlocutory, not final.