The case confirms that leave under r 30(4)(b) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) for a sole director and shareholder to represent a company may be refused where the claim is not clearly articulated, the matter involves legal complexity, the proceedings have been conducted in a disorderly fashion, there is no evidence of financial inability to engage a solicitor, and granting leave would impose additional costs on the opposing party and the court. Opposition to such an application by a model litigant does not breach model litigant obligations where the government has a legitimate interest in claims being clearly articulated and efficiently conducted.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 7 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 7 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.