Zerjavic v Chevron Australia Pty Ltd

[2020] WASCA 40

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › New case on appeal
3. › Self-represented litigant at trial
4. › Whether self-represented litigant should be permitted to advance new case on appeal
5. › Whether status as self-represented litigant constitutes exceptional circumstance
6. › Whether new trial in the interests of justice
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Self-represented litigants
3. › Obligations of trial judge
4. › Whether trial judge obliged to advise self-represented litigant on calling expert evidence
5. › Whether failure to advise constitutes denial of procedural fairness
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Procedural fairness
3. › Trial judge's obligations to self-represented litigant
4. › Whether trial judge required to inform litigant of entitlement to issue subpoena
1. Evidence
2. › Business records
3. › Whether letter produced in response to subpoena constitutes business record
4. › Evidence Act 1906 (WA), ss 79B, 79C(2a)

Quick Take

A trial judge's duty to ensure a self-represented litigant is treated fairly does not extend to advising the litigant about what evidence to call, including expert evidence, or to formulating and conducting the case for the litigant. A self-represented litigant's status does not constitute an exceptional circumstance warranting departure from the settled principles against advancing a new case on appeal. A one-off letter produced in response to a subpoena is not a business record within s 79B of the Evidence Act 1906 (WA).