
Sign up to save your podcasts
Or
Can a director run legal proceedings on behalf of a company *without lawyers*?
A company sought leave to appeal a decision of the NSW Supreme Court.
A director sought to run the application on the company’s behalf. If a company wants to start and run Supreme Court litigation by a director, without a lawyer, then that director must also be a party to the proceedings: UCRP r7.1(3).
The director and the company were both parties seeking leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal has the power to dispense with the requirement to comply with r7.1(3) in special or particular circumstances: [5] and [6].
A number of factors weighed in the director’s favour: (i) she had a 25% shareholding, appeared to be the CEO, and there had been no previous challenge to her authority, (ii) it was alleged the corporation was too poor to afford solicitors, so preventing it from proceeding without them would effectively decide the case, (iii) the dispute is about a small quantum and a straightforward issue ($40K for security for costs), and (iv) the matter is ready to run; if the Court failed to dispense with the rule it would frustrate that process: [7] – [10].
The Court dispensed with the requirement for compliance with r7.1(3) allowing the director to proceed: [11], [15], and [16]
5
22 ratings
Can a director run legal proceedings on behalf of a company *without lawyers*?
A company sought leave to appeal a decision of the NSW Supreme Court.
A director sought to run the application on the company’s behalf. If a company wants to start and run Supreme Court litigation by a director, without a lawyer, then that director must also be a party to the proceedings: UCRP r7.1(3).
The director and the company were both parties seeking leave to appeal. The Court of Appeal has the power to dispense with the requirement to comply with r7.1(3) in special or particular circumstances: [5] and [6].
A number of factors weighed in the director’s favour: (i) she had a 25% shareholding, appeared to be the CEO, and there had been no previous challenge to her authority, (ii) it was alleged the corporation was too poor to afford solicitors, so preventing it from proceeding without them would effectively decide the case, (iii) the dispute is about a small quantum and a straightforward issue ($40K for security for costs), and (iv) the matter is ready to run; if the Court failed to dispense with the rule it would frustrate that process: [7] – [10].
The Court dispensed with the requirement for compliance with r7.1(3) allowing the director to proceed: [11], [15], and [16]
68 Listeners
759 Listeners
23 Listeners
862 Listeners
69 Listeners
18 Listeners
51 Listeners
32 Listeners
314 Listeners
143 Listeners
243 Listeners
51 Listeners
40 Listeners
18 Listeners
19 Listeners