• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The Court identified r 30(4) of the Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) as the relevant rule. It stated that a corporation may start and carry on a proceeding in the Supreme Court “by a solicitor acting for the corporation” or, “with the court's leave,” through an officer or employee authorised by the corporation to represent it ([1]). Dr Quach sought leave in what McCallum CJ understood to be his capacity as a director. He was not a solicitor and was not acting for the company as one ([2]).

The Court asked Dr Quach to explain why leave should be granted, including whether evidence showed that the company could not afford to retain a solicitor. Dr Quach responded that money which might have been used to retain a solicitor had allegedly been withheld by the Australian Taxation Office. He said that withholding was part of the substantive grievance being litigated below. The Court noted, however, that there was no evidence of the company's financial position and no evidence that it could not afford to retain a solicitor despite the alleged withholding ([3]).

Dr Quach also advanced arguments based on an earlier grant of leave, the Commissioner's model litigant obligations and the obligations of the Commissioner's counsel. The Court rejected those arguments as grounds for granting leave ([4]-[6]). Its stated conclusion was that it was “not satisfied that there is any issue on which Dr Quach could provide assistance to the Court” in hearing the appeal. Leave was refused ([7], [10]). Kelly AJ and Muller AJ agreed ([8]-[9]).

The reasons are brief, ex tempore reasons. They resolve the representation question only. They do not determine the company's substantive claims against the Commissioner or make findings on whether funds were improperly retained.

Why the court decided this way

The Court began with the route to representation set out in r 30(4): a company may be represented by a solicitor, or by an authorised officer or employee if the Court grants leave ([1]). The reasons treat Dr Quach as seeking the second route. His status as a director was relevant to the capacity in which he applied, but it did not itself establish that leave would be granted. The rule, as quoted, expressly makes leave necessary for representation by an officer or employee ([1]-[2]).

The Court tested one explanation advanced in support of the application: that the company could not afford a solicitor because money had allegedly been withheld by the ATO. The reasons record the allegation but distinguish it from evidence of the company's financial position. The Court said no such financial evidence had been provided, and no evidence established that the company could not afford a solicitor ([3]). The judgment does not say that inability to afford a solicitor is a mandatory precondition for leave, nor does it state that financial evidence would necessarily have changed the result. It records the Court's question and the evidentiary gap in this application.

The Court separately addressed the other arguments. First, Dr Quach said the Court had previously granted him leave. McCallum CJ said that was irrelevant to the decision being made by the Court as then constituted ([4]). The point was confined to the present application: the Court was to decide whether it was minded to grant leave on this occasion.

Second, the Court rejected the submission that the Commissioner was obliged to consent because it was subject to model litigant obligations. McCallum CJ stated that those rules did not impose such an obligation ([5]). The reasons do not set out the content or source of the model litigant rules, and do not discuss their wider scope.

Third, Dr Quach referred to counsel's disclosure obligations and argued that counsel had an obligation to allow him to be heard. The Court understood the disclosure submission not to raise a separate point from the model litigant argument and said there was no basis for the asserted obligation to let him be heard ([6]).

The Court's express conclusion was not framed as a general test for all applications under r 30(4). It said that it was not satisfied there was any issue on which Dr Quach could assist the Court in hearing this appeal ([7]). That is the clearest stated reason linking the circumstances of the application to the refusal. The order formally refused leave ([10]).

Before and after state of the law

These reasons quote and apply r 30(4), but do not describe a prior legal position or announce a change in the law. The rule, as set out by the Court, provided two ways for a corporation to start and carry on a Supreme Court proceeding: representation by a solicitor, or representation by an authorised officer or employee with the Court's leave ([1]). The decision therefore records the operation of that rule in the application before the Court.

The reasons refer to Bennelong Medical Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 194 as the decision from which the appeal was brought. McCallum CJ notes that Dr Quach had not been authorised to appear for the company in the hearing before Mossop J ([1]). The Court does not analyse that earlier decision as a source of legal principles, and it does not set out the reasons for the earlier refusal. It also says that an asserted earlier grant of leave was irrelevant to the present Court's decision ([4]).

On the material available in this judgment, it would be too broad to describe the decision as establishing a general checklist, such as a requirement that every company establish financial inability to retain a solicitor. The Court asked about affordability and noted the absence of evidence, but did not say that financial inability was a legal precondition under r 30(4) ([3]). Nor does it state that a representative must, as a universal rule, demonstrate a particular level of assistance. Its finding was expressed in relation to Dr Quach and this appeal: the Court was not satisfied he could assist on any issue ([7]).

The judgment consequently provides a narrow account of how the Court exercised the leave power in this case. It does not purport to amend the rule, overrule another decision or describe the broader development of corporate representation law.

Key passages with plain-English translation

Rule 30(4) ([1]): The Court quoted the rule as allowing a company to proceed through a solicitor or, with leave, through an authorised officer or employee.

Plain-English meaning: A company cannot rely merely on an individual's status as a director or employee to have that person appear for it under the second route. Court leave is required. The quoted provision also requires the officer or employee to be authorised by the company.

The evidence about affordability ([3]): The Court recorded that there was no evidence of the company's financial position and no evidence it could not afford a solicitor, notwithstanding the allegation that the ATO had withheld funds.

Plain-English meaning: Dr Quach's explanation referred to an alleged financial problem, but the Court distinguished that account from evidence establishing the company's financial circumstances. The judgment does not decide whether the ATO had improperly withheld funds.

The earlier grant of leave ([4]): McCallum CJ said the asserted earlier grant was irrelevant to whether the Court, in its present composition, was minded to grant leave.

Plain-English meaning: The Court treated the application as one requiring a decision on its own circumstances. The passage does not explain the earlier grant or say that previous grants can never be relevant in other cases.

The model litigant submission ([5]): The Court said the model litigant rules did not impose an obligation on the Commissioner to consent to leave.

Plain-English meaning: In this application, the Court rejected the proposition that the Commissioner's model litigant status required it to agree to Dr Quach representing the company. The reasons do not give a broader account of the model litigant rules.

The conclusion on assistance ([7]): The Court was not satisfied that Dr Quach could assist on any issue in the appeal and, accordingly, refused leave.

Plain-English meaning: That was the Court's stated case-specific reason for refusing the application. The reasons do not formulate it as a complete test for future applications.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is relevant to a narrow procedural situation: a company is involved in a Supreme Court proceeding, and a person who is not a solicitor seeks to represent it as an officer or employee under r 30(4). The rule's text makes Court leave necessary for that route ([1]). The reasons show the kinds of points the Court considered in Dr Quach's application: his asserted capacity as a director, the absence of evidence about the company's finances, an asserted earlier grant of leave, and submissions based on model litigant and counsel obligations ([2]-[6]).

The judgment may be particularly pertinent where an applicant relies on alleged financial difficulties but the Court has no evidence of the corporation's financial position. Here, the Court expressly noted that evidentiary absence ([3]). However, the reasons do not establish that inability to afford a solicitor is always required, or that proving financial inability would itself secure leave.

It may also be relevant where a party argues that an earlier grant of leave controls a later application. This Court said the asserted earlier grant did not answer whether leave should be granted by the Court as then constituted ([4]). The judgment does not explain the circumstances of the prior grant, so its significance beyond this application should be treated cautiously.

Finally, the decision addresses a claim that model litigant obligations require the opposing government party to consent to non-lawyer representation. The Court rejected that claimed obligation in the circumstances put to it ([5]). The decision does not address every possible interaction between model litigant obligations and procedural applications.

The judgment does not address proceedings in other courts, other procedural rules, or circumstances involving different forms of corporate representation. Its express statutory and factual setting is r 30(4) and this appeal in the ACT Supreme Court ([1], [7]).

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no discussion of later decisions applying, distinguishing, following or questioning this ruling. It is dated 29 July 2025, and the text provided identifies no later treatment. On this material, no conclusion can be drawn about how later courts have treated it.

The case cited in the reasons, Bennelong Medical Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (No 5) [2024] ACTSC 194, is identified as the decision under appeal, not as a later decision considering this Court of Appeal's ruling ([1]). The judgment says Dr Quach referred to a previous grant of leave, but does not identify the decision or its circumstances ([4]). It would therefore be unsafe to infer a line of authority or a broader practice from those references alone.

For research purposes, the propositions directly available from the text are limited: the Court quoted r 30(4), rejected the arguments advanced in support of leave, and refused this application because it was not satisfied Dr Quach could assist on an issue in this appeal ([1], [4]-[7]). Any assessment of subsequent judicial treatment would require sources beyond the judgment supplied here.

Still-open questions

The reasons leave several questions unanswered. First, they do not set out a general set of criteria governing the exercise of the leave power under r 30(4). They state the rule's two routes for corporate representation and explain the result in this application, but do not provide a comprehensive account of what factors may be relevant in other cases ([1], [7]).

Second, although the Court asked about the company's ability to afford a solicitor, it did not say whether financial capacity is a formal criterion, one consideration among others, or simply a point raised by the Court in this application ([3]). It also did not decide whether evidence of financial difficulty would be sufficient to support leave.

Third, the Court did not explain what it meant, in practical terms, by asking whether Dr Quach could assist it on an issue in the appeal. The reasons record the conclusion but do not identify a proposed submission, an issue in the appeal, or a detailed assessment of Dr Quach's knowledge or proposed role ([7]). The case therefore should not be used, on its own, to infer a universal measure of assistance.

Fourth, the judgment does not identify the asserted earlier grant of leave or explain the procedural circumstances in which it was made ([4]). It resolves only that the asserted grant did not determine the present application before this Court.

Finally, the decision does not address the merits of the underlying dispute with the Commissioner, including whether funds were withheld or whether that conduct was improper. Those matters appear only as Dr Quach's explanation of the company's alleged financial circumstances and as part of the substantive grievance said to be before the court below ([3]). The outcome here is confined to representation: leave under r 30(4) was refused ([10]).

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.