In Trkulja v Markovic, the Victorian Court of Appeal summarised the principles relating to the judge’s duty to provide advice and assistance to a self-represented litigant in civil proceedings. In that case, complaints were made that the trial judge had not given appropriate advice and assistance to one of the litigants in circumstances where both parties to the litigation had been self-represented. The Court of Appeal, however, held that the criticism of the trial judge was without foundation. Read about the case here.

Section 101(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Appeal from a “judgment or order” of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in a Division.  According to the authorities, a “judgment or order” in this context means an operative judicial act, i.e. the formal judgment or order which when entered is binding upon the parties and definitive of their legal rights. Therefore, a judge’s reasons for judgment are not of themselves a “judgment or order”.

In TriCare (Hastings) Limited v Allen, the appellant sought to appeal against obiter remarks of the trial judge contained in his reasons for judgment and not against the judgment or order. Accordingly, the Court of Appeal held that the appeal was misconceived and incompetent. Read about the case here.

Section 459E of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) permits the service of a creditor’s statutory demand on a company where the demand relates to a “debt” that is owing, due and payable by the company to the creditor. A creditor, therefore, cannot make demand for something that does not have the characteristics of a “debt” within the meaning of that section. The meaning of “debt” in the context of statutory demands has been considered by the courts in a number of cases over the years but most recently by the Supreme Court of Victoria in Meales Concrete Pumping Pty Ltd v Probuild Constructions (Aust) Pty Ltd.  Read about the case here.

A failure to comply with the strict requirements of s 459G of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) may have substantial adverse consequences for a company the subject of a creditor’s statutory demand. An example of this can be seen in Adhesive Pro Pty Ltd v Blackrock Supplies Pty Ltd where it was held that a copy of the company’s application to set aside a statutory demand had not been served on the creditor within the 21 day period as required by s 459G(3)(b) and that, therefore, the Court had no jurisdiction to hear the application. The company’s loss of its right to contest the validity of the statutory demand was a result of delay by the registry staff within the Court in processing the company’s application and supporting affidavits and providing sealed copies of these documents. Read about the case here.

In Nadarajapillai v Naderasa (No 2), a solicitor who instituted and maintained an appeal on behalf of his client that had no prospects of success and that lacked merit was ordered to pay to the opposing party the amount of the costs that his client had been ordered to pay to that party. Read about the case here.