application to dispense with requirement for corporation to be represented by a lawyer
proposed representation by director
Quick Take
1The general rule requiring a corporation to be represented by a lawyer in the Federal Court is founded in the public interest in the administration of justice, not in protecting a lawyer's monopoly; dispensation under r 1.34 must be exercised consistently with the overarching purpose in s 37M of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976.
2Where the proposed lay representative concedes financial capacity to engage lawyers, the absence of any access-to-justice impediment is a significant factor against dispensation, and the remaining factors — including legal complexity, the representative's lack of objectivity as a likely witness, the need to instruct expert witnesses independently, and the absence of professional disciplinary safeguards — weighed decisively against the order sought.
3A sole director who is intimately identified with the corporation's claims and who will likely be a key witness faces an inherent conflict between the objectivity required of a representative and their personal involvement, which is the very vice that the requirement for legal representation is designed to guard against.
