ALSONS PTY LIMITED v SUNPOST PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA 3 April 1995 [1995] NSWCA 17 Meagher JA. In the present case the respondent to appeal has filed a notice of motion that the appeal be struck out. The ground on which I am asked to decide the matter is that the appeal has been filed and commenced otherwise than by a solicitor. It was filed apparently by a barrister called Mr Lumley. It is argued by Mr Conway on behalf of the claimant/respondent to the appeal that this is impermissible. He points to Part 4 rule 4(2) of the Supreme Court Rules which very simply provide: Except as provided by under any Act, a corporation (other than a solicitor corporation) may not commence or carry on any proceedings otherwise than by a solicitor There is not much ambiguity about that. The strictness with which that rule is applied by this Court was illustrated by a decision of the Court of Appeal in Bay Marine Pty Limited v Clayton Country Property Pty Ltd 1986 8 NSWLR 104. The respondent drew this matter again and again to the attention of the appellant, but for various reasons the appellant disregarded or did not receive the communication which the respondent sent to it. There seems to me no doubt about the correctness of Mr Conway's submissions. The point recently arose directly in a case called Jawaira Pty Limited v Primary Industry Bank of Australia Limited, (unreported, 17 March1995, Master McLaughlin (SC)). In particular Master McLaughlin pointed out that the effect of the 1994 amendments to the Legal Profession Act are to enable a barrister to act as a barrister, that is essentially in the role of an advocate, without the intervention of a solicitor between himself and his client. It didn't go so far as to enable a barrister to act as a solicitor. What Mr Lumley did in the present case was precisely that: to try and act as a solicitor. Miss Black, in an ably argued submission, said that Mr Lumley did not understand the effect of the Supreme Court Rules and was under the impression somehow or other that the amendments to the Legal Profession Act had enabled barristers to file initiating proceedings on behalf of corporations. She also pointed out on a discretionary ground, her solicitor having subsequently filed another document in a bid to rectify the situation, that to dismiss the appeal would cause her client some damage because it would be forced to pay additional filing fees for either a second appeal or application for leave to appeal. That is true but beside the point in my view. There is no ground for believing the filing of any subsequent documents can cure the deficiency of the first document. The document filed on behalf of the appellant by a barrister acting as if he were a solicitor is a nullity and as a nullity cannot be cured. I shall not speak further on the rights of action which the appellant may have against the unfortunate barrister who behaved as if he were a solicitor. That is a matter which the parties can work out for themselves. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS I will therefore order that the appeal be struck out and the appellant pay the respondent's costs of this motion. Orders accordingly.