F1 Solutions Pty Ltd v Rodda Rae Pty Ltd

The plaintiffs in the proceedings would be F1 Solutions Pty Ltd, Bomang Information Services Pty Ltd, the Boman Trust, the Boman Superannuation Fund, Gustad Boman and Cimi Boman-Peters. The claims would be for professional negligence and breach of contract arising from the defendant’s engagement as an accountant and registered tax agent. The defendant is identified as Rodda Rae Pty Ltd trading as Greenlight Super Services.

There are various claims articulated in the proposed statement of claim which relate to the non-lodgement of income tax returns in the 2021 financial year, late lodgement of 2022 and 2023 tax returns, non-lodgement of self-managed superannuation fund returns, failure to lodge a franking deficit tax return, incorrect fringe benefits tax and payroll tax treatment, superannuation contribution misclassification, and a failure to provide records.

The various claims for the plaintiffs are relatively modest ones, except for a claim made by the first plaintiff, which relates to the loss of a chance to obtain a particular contract valued at some $810,681, the loss of that chance being particularised as 40% of the contract value ($324,272).

The defendant has opposed a grant of leave permitting Ms Boman-Peters to represent the two companies, essentially relying upon the complexity of the claim being made and the need to have a lawyer involved so as to allow the proceedings to proceed consistent with the court’s rules and directions, and to adequately allow the companies to comply with their obligations in relation to disclosure of material and articulation of the claim.

The basis upon which it is said to be appropriate to permit Ms Boman-Peters to represent the companies is her knowledge of the underlying factual matters and the fact that she has a degree of experience in dealing with court matters, even though she is not a lawyer. It is said that the engagement of lawyers would be disproportionate, having regard to the amounts claimed, at least by some of the plaintiffs.

That, I assume, is a reference to the plaintiffs other than the first plaintiff, as each of their claims is relatively modest, and if pursued separately, there would be a good case to say that the engagement of lawyers would result in the incurring of costs which were disproportionate to the amounts in issue. However, the case needs to be considered as a whole.

The defendant has pointed to the recent decision of Muller J in Geha Enterprises Pty Ltd v Deuteronomy 28 Investments Pty Ltd and Registrar General of the ACT [2026] ACTSC 103, which relates to an equivalent situation and properly articulates, at [6] and [7], the principles to be applied.

In the present case, as I see it, the most significant issue is that what is sought to be pursued is a substantial claim for a loss of chance to obtain a particular contract from the Commonwealth. The litigation of that issue will involve reasonably complex legal questions and not only an assessment of the prospects of the company obtaining the contract in the absence of negligence or breach of contract by the defendant, but also an assessment of the likely level of profit that would have been made pursuant to that contract, and hence the value of the loss of chance.

Those two issues will involve substantial questions as to the scope of disclosure that is required in order to establish the value of that loss of chance. The scope of disclosure is something which will not be easy for a non-lawyer to appreciate, and a matter in relation to which there is considerable potential scope for disputation. I accept that some admissions have been made by or on behalf of the defendant about the quantum of particular aspects of the claim, and it may be that, having regard to those admissions, the defendant takes a particular view of those aspects of the claim which means that they are relatively easy to resolve.

However, because of the loss of chance claim, I consider that this is not a case in which it is appropriate to grant leave to allow a non-lawyer to represent the companies, particularly in circumstances where that non-lawyer is likely to be a witness of significance in the case, and where, as I have indicated, the procedural and legal issues are not necessarily straightforward. There is no evidence of impecuniosity that would preclude the engagement of lawyers.

It is in fact a case in which it is likely that the involvement of lawyers is more likely to achieve a settlement at an early stage, because a defendant faced with a properly articulated claim in relation to which admissions have already been made is much more likely to settle the claim than one faced with a claim where it is difficult for the defendant to properly understand its realistic level of exposure if the matter proceeds to a trial.

The result is that I will make an order dismissing the present application in proceeding, with, subject to any submissions that Ms Boman-Peters wishes to make, costs following the event. However, I wish to hear the parties as to where that would leave the proceedings, because I do not wish to create further complexities by somehow unravelling the steps that have been attempted in relation to the filing of the claim to date.