Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd
[2011] QCA 320
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Appeal Determined - Special Leave Refused (HCA)
- Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd[2011] QCA 320
- Add to List
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd[2011] QCA 320
Coronis v Jilt Pty Ltd[2011] QCA 320
COURT OF APPEAL
MARGARET McMURDO P
CHESTERMAN JA
MARGARET WILSON AJA
Appeal No 6355 of 2011
DC No 393 of 2004
IRENE CORONISAppellant/Plaintiff
and
JILT PTY LTDFirst Respondent/Defendant
and
LESLIE JAMES WILLIAMSSecond Respondent/Defendant
BRISBANE
DATE 10/11/2011
JUDGMENT
THE PRESIDENT: The appellant in this matter, Irene Coronis, who has chosen to appear by telephone from Cairns, has asked that she be represented today at the hearing by her husband, Mr James Bradshaw, who is present, as he is a party in the next appeal the Court is to hear.
Mr Bradshaw was a barrister but currently does not hold a practising certificate. She asks that he be permitted to appear today, not as a barrister on her behalf, but as a husband and friend and she expressed her great confidence in him.
There are three reasons why I consider the application should be refused.
The first is because, as this Court explained in Coffey v State of Queensland & Ors [2010] QCA 291 at [38], the Legal Profession Act 2007 (Qld) which requires that only persons with a current practising certificate can appear before the Court is designed to protect the public interest in the proper administration of justice by ensuring that legal work is carried out only by those who are properly qualified to do so and to protect consumers by ensuring that persons carrying out legal work are entitled to do so.
The second is that Ms Coronis has put in very detailed written submissions in this case and, in that respect, she has clearly had the assistance of Mr Bradshaw. She has put in a written address, as well as a synopsis of argument and a reply to the respondent's outline of argument. It is difficult to see what more could be done on her behalf to put the arguments she has.
The third and very significant factor is that Mr Bradshaw was a witness in this case at first instance and it is a well established point of practice that a barrister should not appear before the courts in cases where the barrister is a witness in the case.
For those three reasons, I do not consider it would be appropriate in this case for Mr Bradshaw to appear for the appellant or to assist the Court.
CHESTERMAN JA: I agree.
MARGARET WILSON AJA: I agree.