Bauskis v Liew

[2013] NSWCA 297

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Practice and procedure
3. › Discretionary decisions
4. › Refusal of adjournment
5. › Self-represented litigant
6. › Whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion
7. › Whether denial of procedural fairness
8. › House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Self-represented litigants
3. › Duty of court to unrepresented litigants
4. › Extent of obligation to ensure fair hearing
5. › Whether obligation extends to advising litigant on exercise of rights
6. › Whether unrepresented litigant subject to same rules as represented parties
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Evidence
3. › Late service of affidavit
4. › Non-compliance with court directions
5. › Discretion to reject late evidence
6. › Prejudice to opposing party
1. Contract
2. › Building, engineering and related contracts
3. › Joint venture
4. › Deed of arrangement
5. › Whether party entitled to recover for services rendered outside terms of deed
6. › Quantum meruit
7. › Whether restitutionary claim available where valid contract covers the field

Quick Take

A self-represented litigant who consciously declines legal representation and is warned by the court of the desirability of obtaining legal advice, but elects to proceed, must show very good reason for a subsequent adjournment to obtain legal representation. The court's duty to unrepresented litigants does not extend to advising on the exercise of rights or conferring special procedural advantages. A restitutionary quantum meruit claim cannot be maintained where a valid contract governs the subject matter of the claim.