Harradine v University of Adelaide [1990] HCA 62

High Court of Australia Brennan, Toohey and McHugh JJ. Harradine v University of Adelaide [1990] HCA 62

ORDER Order accordingly and matter stood over in list. Brennan J.

The applicant has been admitted to practise as a barrister and solicitor and is entitled to appear as counsel in this Court but here he is a party litigant and a party litigant must appear either personally or by counsel.

In New Brunswick and Canada Railway Co. v Conybeare [1] , Lord Westbury L.C. said with reference to an application by a party litigant who wished to appear as junior counsel: "But not both as party and counsel. The Respondent must elect to argue in person or not. There cannot be a mixture of the two characters." And so it is in this Court. If a litigant, being counsel, chooses to appear in person he is entitled to the privileges only of a litigant in person. Otherwise he must appear by counsel; that is by counsel other than himself. Here, O. 69A, r. 11 provides that: "An application for special leave to appeal shall be made to a Full Court by counsel." As Mr. Harradine appears here in person, not by counsel, we cannot hear him.

1. (1862) 9 H.L.C. 711, at p. 719 [11 E.R. 907, at p. 911]. Toohey J.

I agree with the construction placed on O. 69A, r. 11 of the High Court Rules by the presiding judge. For myself, I would reserve the question whether there is a power to dispense with that rule, whether in the exercise of the inherent jurisdiction of the Court or under O. 64 relating to non-compliance with rules until that matter has been more fully argued.

McHugh J.

I agree with the reasons of Brennan J.