Legal Representation of Infants Act 1977

There are a small number of discrete legal concepts that structure the Act.

• Guardian ad litem as statutory device. The core concept is the guardian ad litem, a court-appointed person who represents an infant in proceedings (s 5(1)). The appointment can be for the whole proceeding or for part of it (s 5(1)).

• Court discretion to appoint and manage representation. The Act gives courts broad discretionary powers: to appoint (s 5(1)-(3)), to adjourn hearings to enable appointment (s 5(2)), to direct notice procedures (s 5(6)), and to remove guardians and stay proceedings while replacement occurs (s 6(1)). The court may also order that notice need not be served on the infant (s 5(6)).

• Evidentiary threshold for appointment. Any application for appointment, whether made under direction of the court or otherwise, must be supported by evidence that the proposed guardian consents, is a proper person, and has no adverse interest to that of the infant (s 5(4)). This creates a specific documentary/information threshold for appointment.

• Interface with other guardianship regimes. Before appointing a guardian ad litem, the court must inquire into other existing guardianship arrangements for the infant; where the infant is under the guardianship of the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) as defined in s 3 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004, the court must serve notice on the CEO and give the CEO an opportunity to be heard (s 5(5)). The Act therefore recognises, and gives procedural primacy to, statutory guardianship under other legislation.

• Limits on procedural rights of a non‑intervening infant. If the infant for whom a guardian ad litem is appointed does not intervene, the Act expressly limits the infant’s procedural posture: the infant is nonetheless entitled to be represented at any hearing by a solicitor or counsel who may cross-examine and address the court, but is not entitled to adduce evidence (s 5(7)). This splits representation rights between advocacy and evidentiary participation.

• Professional practice requirement. A guardian ad litem must act by a solicitor (s 5(8)). The statute therefore requires that representation be delivered through the legal profession rather than by lay guardians acting alone.

• Funding and costs allocation. The court may order costs of representation to be paid by a party, out of a fund in which the infant has an interest, or charged to the Suitors’ Fund established under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1964 (s 7). This authorises courts to allocate the economic burden of representation to different sources, including public provision via the Suitors’ Fund.

• Application routes and secrecy. An application for appointment may be made by another party, by the proposed guardian, or the court may act of its own motion (s 5(2)). The Act allows ex parte applications (s 5(3)) and permits the court to order that notice need not be served on the infant (s 5(6)). Those procedures create routes for appointment that can occur without the infant’s prior notice.

• Removal and procedural protections against unsuitable guardians. The court may remove a guardian ad litem of its own motion or on application (s 6(1)); the removal process uses a summons, which must normally be served on the guardian sought to be removed (s 6(2)). The court can also suspend proceedings until a replacement is appointed (s 6(1)).

• Scope via proclamation and rules. The Act’s application to courts is fixed to named courts but can be extended by proclamation (s 3(1)(e), s 3(2)). Rule-making and regulation powers operate with a default reliance on existing rules of court where available (s 4(1)), and Governor-made regulations fill gaps where no rules apply (s 4(2)).

These concepts combine to create a statutory template: a court-centred, solicitor-mediated means of ensuring that infants whose interests may be affected receive separate legal representation, with built-in procedural safeguards and explicit funding options.

The statute reaches a narrow set of participants and a wider set of institutional actors.

• Infants. The primary objects are "infants" whose interests are or may be affected by proceedings and who are not parties to those proceedings (s 5(1)(a)). The Act does not define "infant" within the text supplied; courts will apply the term in accordance with their ordinary usage and any other applicable law. The statute creates rights for such infants to be represented and establishes the conditions under which a guardian ad litem may be appointed to represent them.

• Proposed guardians ad litem. Individuals who consent to act and are proposed as guardians must be "fit and proper" and must have no interest adverse to the infant (s 5(1), s 5(4)). They must also act by a solicitor (s 5(8)). The Act therefore constrains who can be placed in the role and requires they operate through legal counsel.

• Parties to proceedings. Parties face a potential cost exposure. The court may order the costs of representing an infant to be paid by a party to the proceedings (s 7). Parties should therefore anticipate that opposing parties or other parties may be ordered to pick up representation costs.

• Courts and tribunals. The Act applies to multiple courts and tribunals listed in s 3(1): the Supreme Court, District Court, State Administrative Tribunal, Family Court in non‑federal jurisdictions, Magistrates Court in civil jurisdiction, and the Children’s Court for certain applications under the Children and Community Services Act 2004. The Governor may add other courts by proclamation (s 3(1)(e), s 3(2)). Those courts are responsible for exercising the appointment, removal and costs powers in accordance with the Act; they also carry procedural duties such as inquiring into existing guardianship arrangements (s 5(5)).

• Chief Executive Officer under Children and Community Services Act 2004. Where the infant is under the guardianship of that CEO, the court must serve notice on the CEO and allow the CEO to be heard before appointing a guardian ad litem (s 5(5)). This places a procedural duty upon courts to interface with statutory child-welfare guardianship arrangements.

• Solicitors and counsel. The Act requires guardians ad litem to act by a solicitor (s 5(8)). Where an infant does not intervene, the infant is still entitled to representation at hearings by a solicitor or counsel who may cross-examine and address the court (s 5(7)). These provisions impose professional obligations on legal practitioners who act for infants.

• Suitors’ Fund administrators. Because costs may be charged to the Suitors’ Fund (s 7), administrators of that fund (established under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1964) may be drawn upon to meet costs of infant representation where the court so orders.

• Executive government (Governor, rule-makers). The Governor has roles: making proclamations extending the Act’s application to other courts (s 3) and making regulations where no rules of court apply (s 4(2)). Where rules of court can be made for practice and procedure, that authority is construed to include rules necessary to give effect to this Act (s 4(1)). So rule-makers and the Governor are affected as they will supply procedural detail and fill gaps.

In short, the Act primarily affects infants and their legal representation, but it allocates procedural duties and potential cost liabilities across parties, the legal profession, courts and certain executive actors.

The Act creates specific judicial powers and associated duties rather than free-standing civil rights with private enforcement outside court procedure. The operative duties and rights in the text are:

• Court duty to inquire into existing guardianship and to notify CEO where applicable. Before appointing a guardian ad litem the court "shall inquire into the guardianship of the infant for purposes other than those of this Act" (s 5(5)). If the infant is under the guardianship of the CEO as defined in s 3 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004, the court "shall not make an appointment … unless and until the court has caused notice to be served on the CEO and given the CEO an opportunity to be heard" (s 5(5)). This is a mandatory procedural duty.

• Court power to appoint guardian ad litem when infant's interests are or may be affected and the infant is not a party, and court considers infant ought to be separately represented (s 5(1)). The court may make such appointment at any stage and may do so on its own initiative or on application (s 5(2)). Application may be made ex parte (s 5(3)), but the court retains power to order otherwise and to give directions about notice (s 5(6)).

• Evidentiary requirement supporting applications. Any application to appoint must be supported with evidence that the proposed guardian consents, is proper to act, and has no interest adverse to the infant (s 5(4)). That places an admissible evidence burden on the applicant.

• Rights of non-intervening infant to representation by solicitor or counsel at hearings. Even where an infant does not intervene, the infant "is nevertheless entitled to be represented at any hearing relating to those proceedings by a solicitor or counsel who may cross‑examine witnesses and address the court" (s 5(7)). This is a procedural entitlement to advocacy, but with a specific limitation: the infant is "not entitled to adduce evidence" where they have not intervened (s 5(7)). Thus advocacy rights are preserved but evidentiary participation is curtailed for non-intervening infants.

• Professional duty of guardians. A guardian ad litem "must act by a solicitor" (s 5(8)). This imposes a requirement on the guardian as to engagement of legal counsel, and therefore places service obligations upon solicitors retained in that role.

• Power to remove guardian and the stays that can follow. The court may remove a guardian ad litem on its own motion or on application by a party or any other person (s 6(1)). The court may "stay proceedings until a guardian ad litem in place of the one removed has been appointed" (s 6(1)), a duty to manage proceedings to avoid prejudice to the infant. Removal applications are to be made by summons and, unless the court orders otherwise, must be served on the guardian whose removal is sought (s 6(2)). These are procedural safeguards for the removal process.

• Costs allocation powers. Where an infant is represented under the Act, the court "may order the costs, or any portion of the costs, of such representation to be paid, where appropriate, by a party to those proceedings, or out of any fund in which the infant has an interest, or to be charged to the Suitors' Fund" (s 7). This gives the court a discretionary financial duty to allocate costs and identifies three specified potential sources.

• Rule-making and regulation powers. The Act requires courts and the Governor to make or enable procedural rules (s 4). Where rules of court exist, they are to be construed as including the power to regulate matters for purposes of this Act (s 4(1)); where no rules of court apply, the Governor may make regulations for carrying out the Act (s 4(2)). That places a procedural law-making duty on the judiciary and executive to supply implementing detail.

Note what the Act does not do within its text: it does not specify a definition of "infant" in the supplied text, it does not prescribe qualifications for "fit and proper person", it does not create criminal offences, nor does it provide an express right for an infant to be made a party. Those matters are left to judicial construction, rules of court, or other statutes.

This Act does not create criminal penalties or regulatory offences. Enforcement and compliance mechanisms are strictly judicial and civil in character.

• Judicial remedy architecture. The Act empowers courts to make appointments of guardians ad litem, to remove them, to adjourn or stay proceedings pending appointment or replacement, and to allocate costs of representation (ss 5-7). Those are the principal enforcement levers: appoint, direct procedure, remove, and order costs. There is no provision for fines, imprisonment, or administrative sanctions within the Act as supplied.

• Removal and stays as protective enforcement. The court may remove a guardian ad litem on its own motion or on application by a party or other person (s 6(1)) and may stay proceedings until a replacement is appointed (s 6(1)). The summons requirement for removal applications (served on the guardian unless the court otherwise orders, s 6(2)) creates a procedural enforcement pathway that protects the infant’s representation while providing the guardian natural justice in removal proceedings.

• Costs orders as economic enforcement. Section 7 permits courts to order the payment of costs of representation by a party, from a fund in which the infant has an interest, or charged to the Suitors’ Fund. Those orders give effect to enforcement by assigning the economic burden of representation. The Act contemplates charging public resources (Suitors’ Fund) as well as private parties or the infant’s assets.

• No statutory appeal provisions specified. The Act does not set out special appeal or review rights vis-à-vis appointments, removals or costs orders; such appeals or reviews must proceed under general appellate and judicial review procedures of the courts to which the Act applies. The text supplied does not create separate appellate mechanisms.

• Reliance on rules of court and regulations. Enforcement and procedures will be shaped by rules of court or Governor-made regulations, as permitted by s 4. Any procedural enforcement mechanisms beyond those in the Act will therefore depend on subordinate instruments made under this delegated authority.

• Interaction with guardianship under the Children and Community Services Act 2004. Where the infant is under the guardianship of the CEO under that Act, the court must notify and give the CEO an opportunity to be heard before appointing a guardian ad litem (s 5(5)). This creates an interlocking enforcement process where statutory guardianship regimes may affect whether and how representation is ordered.

In sum, enforcement is exercised through court powers and costs orders, not through criminal penalties. The Act places procedural safeguards on appointment and removal, and contemplates delegations to rules and regulations for practical enforcement detail.

The Act expressly interfaces with other statutes and with court procedural law, and leaves scope for further interaction by proclamation and subordinate instruments.

• Children and Community Services Act 2004. Section 3(1)(d) and s 5(5) specifically reference the Children and Community Services Act 2004. The Act applies to the Children’s Court in relation to applications made under that Act (s 3(1)(d)). More substantively, s 5(5) requires the court, before appointing a guardian ad litem, to inquire into the infant’s guardianship under other laws and, where the infant is under the guardianship of the CEO as defined in s 3 of the Children and Community Services Act 2004, to serve notice on the CEO and permit the CEO an opportunity to be heard. That creates a mandatory procedural intersection with child-welfare statutory guardianship.

• Suitors’ Fund Act 1964. Section 7 authorises courts to charge costs of representation to the Suitors’ Fund. That is an express cross-reference supplying a potential public funding source for representation. The Act thus contemplates utilisation of an existing statutory fund to meet representation costs when the court deems it appropriate.

• Court rules and regulations. Section 4 establishes how the Act is to be implemented procedurally. Where any Act permits the making of regulations or rules of court for regulating practice and procedure, that power "shall be construed as including the power to make such regulations or rules for the purposes of this Act" (s 4(1)). Where no rules of court apply, the Governor may make regulations for effecting the Act (s 4(2)). The Act therefore depends upon, and authorises, subordinate instruments in courts’ existing rule-making frameworks and by the executive where no rules exist.

• Jurisdictional scope and proclamation power. The Act names specific courts and tribunals in s 3(1) but expressly permits extension by Governor proclamation to "such other courts exercising jurisdiction in the State as the Governor may from time to time by proclamation declare" (s 3(1)(e)). That enables the Act’s mechanisms to be brought into force in other jurisdictions by proclamation, and s 3(2) permits variation or revocation of such proclamations. The compilation table records specific amendments that added the State Administrative Tribunal and made other jurisdictional changes via later Acts (Notes).

• Family Court and federal/non‑federal jurisdiction. Section 3(1)(c) applies the Act to the Family Court of Western Australia "in the non‑federal jurisdictions of that court". This identifies an interaction with federal jurisdictional separation: the Act governs state-level functions of that court but does not purport to apply to federal jurisdiction.

• Other statutes and reprints. The compilation table records amendments by other Acts including the Acts Amendment (Department for Community Services) Act 1984, Financial Legislation Amendment Act 1996, Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Act 1997, Children and Community Services Act 2004 amendments, State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 and Courts Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2004, which have adjusted s 3 and other cross-references. Those amendment entries indicate that the Act’s operation and application have been updated to align with other institutional and statutory reforms.

• Absence of express definitions or interaction with guardianship law beyond the CEO. The Act does not define "infant" within the supplied text and does not set out how the Act interacts with other private law guardianship arrangements beyond the CEO reference. Courts will therefore have to apply ordinary interpretive methods and any relevant statutory definitions from other legislation when construing the term in context.

Overall, the Act is designed to operate as a procedural overlay to court processes, explicitly integrating with selected child-welfare and funding statutes and relying upon rules of court and regulations to supply detailed practice and procedure.

The compilation table attached to the text gives the Act’s formal legislative history and the principal amendments up to the reprint date (7 October 2011). The table records the original enactment and subsequent amending Acts, with dates of assent and commencement as follows.

• Legal Representation of Infants Act 1977 (No. 43 of 1977). Assented 7 November 1977, commenced 1 January 1978 (s 2, Gazette reference). This is the original statute establishing the regime.

• Acts Amendment (Department for Community Services) Act 1984 (Pt VI, No. 121 of 1984). Assented 19 December 1984, commenced 1 January 1985. The Notes indicate s 5 was amended by No. 121 of 1984 s 30; the compilation table lists this amendment and includes it in Reprint 1.

• Financial Legislation Amendment Act 1996 (s 64, No. 49 of 1996). Assented 25 October 1996, commencement 25 October 1996. The compilation table notes s 7 was amended by that Act.

• Statutes (Repeals and Minor Amendments) Act 1997 (s 79, No. 57 of 1997). Assented 15 December 1997, commencement 15 December 1997. The Notes indicate s 5 was amended by No. 57 of 1997 s 79.

• Reprint 1: Legal Representation of Infants Act 1977 as at 16 May 2003. This reprint incorporated the amendments up to that date.

• Children and Community Services Act 2004 (Sch. 2 cl. 18, No. 34 of 2004). Assented 20 October 2004, commenced 1 March 2006. The compilation table lists this as amending s 3 (No. 34 of 2004 Sch. 2 cl. 18(2); Sch. 2 cl. 18(3)) and integrating references to children’s welfare provisions.

• State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (s 176, No. 54 of 2004). Assented 23 November 2004, commenced 1 January 2005. The compilation table records inclusion of the State Administrative Tribunal in s 3.

• Courts Legislation Amendment and Repeal Act 2004 (s 141, No. 59 of 2004). Assented 23 November 2004, commenced 1 May 2005. The compilation table records that this instrument amended s 3 as well.

• Reprint 2: Legal Representation of Infants Act 1977 as at 7 October 2011, incorporating the amendments listed.

The Notes in the text also show that s 3 was amended by No. 54 of 2004 s 176; No. 34 of 2004 Sch. 2 cl. 18(2); No. 59 of 2004 s 141; s 5 was amended by No. 121 of 1984 s 30; No. 57 of 1997 s 79; No. 34 of 2004 Sch. 2 cl. 18(3); and s 7 was amended by No. 49 of 1996 s 64. Those specific amendment references identify which provisions were modified and by which amending Acts. The compilation table gives dates of assent and commencement for each amending instrument and identifies the reprints that consolidated the changes.

The Act’s capacity to have its scope extended or varied by proclamation (s 3(1)(e), s 3(2)) and its reliance on rules of court and Governor-made regulations (s 4) mean that substantive operational changes may also arise from subordinate instruments rather than primary legislation alone. The compilation table documents the principal primary-law amendments through to 2011.

The statute text and compilation table supplied contain no citations to judicial decisions or reported litigation concerning the Act. The document is a legislative reprint and amendment record; it does not summarise any case law or judicial interpretation. No cases are named or described in the text provided.

Because the paper supplied is limited to the Act and its amendment record, the absence of litigation references in this material does not indicate that courts have not considered the Act in practice. It does mean, however, that any line-by-line judicial construction, contested issues about the meaning of "infant", "fit and proper person", the scope of "representation", or the interaction with other statutes will need to be researched separately in reported decisions and unreported judgments. The Act itself anticipates that courts will exercise wide procedural discretion (appointment, removal, directions as to notice, costs orders) and that rules of court and regulations will flesh out practice. Any practitioner seeking to litigate the application of the Act in a concrete matter should therefore obtain and review case law from the courts listed in s 3(1) and any subordinate instruments made under s 4.

In summary: the current text provides no litigation history; practitioners must consult judicial databases and local court materials to identify how courts have applied the Act in specific factual contexts.

The Act contains several procedural and substantive features that can be overlooked if one reads the statute superficially. These are concrete, source-based risks or pitfalls that affect litigation strategy, costs exposure and procedural rights.

• Ex parte applications permitted. Section 5(3) allows an application for appointment to be made ex parte. That can be appropriate where notice would defeat the object of the application, but it also means parties and proposed guardians must be ready to justify an ex parte route and to manage later orders about notice, costs or substitution of representation. The Act also permits the court to order that notice need not be served on the infant (s 5(6)), which can add an extra layer to procedural surprise.

• "Must act by a solicitor" excludes lay guardians acting alone. Section 5(8) requires a guardian ad litem to "act by a solicitor". A proposed guardian who is not prepared to engage a solicitor will not comply with the statutory requirement. Practitioners should ensure that any appointment is accompanied by solicitor involvement and evidence of that arrangement (s 5(4) requires proof of consent).

• Non-intervening infant cannot adduce evidence. Section 5(7) provides that an infant who does not intervene is entitled to representation at hearings and to have solicitor or counsel cross-examine and address the court, but is "not entitled to adduce evidence." This may materially affect litigation strategy where the infant’s factual testimony is significant. If adducing evidence is necessary, the infant may need to intervene as a party, which the Act does not itself provide for; practitioners must consider the practical implications.

• Evidence threshold for appointment. Any application must be supported by evidence proving the proposed guardian consents, is proper, and has no adverse interest to that of the infant (s 5(4)). That requires documentary or affidavit material at the time of application. A failure to provide such evidence could lead to rejection of appointment or later challenges.

• Interaction with CEO guardianship requires notice and opportunity to be heard. Where the infant is under the guardianship of the CEO under the Children and Community Services Act 2004, the court must serve the CEO with notice and give an opportunity to be heard before appointing a guardian ad litem (s 5(5)). Failure to observe this mandatory step can render an appointment procedurally vulnerable.

• Appointment does not bind an infant who is not a party. Section 5(9) states that any judgment in proceedings in which an infant for whom a guardian ad litem has been appointed is not a party "shall not be deemed to be binding on that infant by virtue only of the fact that the guardian ad litem was so appointed." This limits the ability of parties to use appointment as the sole basis to bind infants to outcomes; if parties intend to secure binding effect they will need to ensure the infant becomes a party or otherwise consents.

• Removal proceedings require service on guardian unless court orders otherwise. An application to remove a guardian is made by summons and must be served on the guardian being removed unless the court orders otherwise (s 6(2)). Where removal is urgent or involves allegations of misconduct, the need to serve the guardian may affect timing and strategy.

• Broad judicial discretion and lack of statutory definitions. The Act leaves key terms open,"infant" and "fit and proper person" are not defined in the supplied text. Courts have discretion across many steps, including appointment, notice and costs. That creates uncertainty and places a premium on persuasive proof and precedent from the relevant court.

• Costs can be charged to multiple sources, including the Suitors' Fund. Section 7 allows the court to direct costs to a party, to a fund the infant has an interest in, or to the Suitors’ Fund. Practitioners should assess who has financial exposure and be prepared to argue appropriateness of the source of payment. The Suitors’ Fund is public and its invocation may carry procedural or policy objections in particular cases.

• Expansion by proclamation and subordinate rules may alter practical operation. The Governor may expand the Act’s application to other courts by proclamation (s 3(1)(e), s 3(2)), and rules of court or regulations under s 4 will supply procedural detail. An apparent uniform statutory framework may in practice produce variations across courts depending on rules and proclamations in force.

These are not normative judgments but concrete points the text itself creates that materially affect practice. Each is traceable to the statutory provisions cited.

Compliance under this Act is primarily procedural and document-driven. The following practical checklist sets out steps and considerations, each tied to the relevant statutory provision.

1. Early assessment of whether the infant is "not a party" and whether their interests "are or may be affected". The court may appoint a guardian ad litem only where both elements in s 5(1)(a) are present and the court considers the infant ought to be separately represented. Prepare a concise factual statement demonstrating the effect on the infant’s interests.

2. Decide the route for application. An application may be made by another party, by the proposed guardian, or the court may act sua sponte (s 5(2)). Consider whether ex parte application is necessary and justified; s 5(3) permits ex parte applications, but anticipate potential later requirements about notice and challenge.

3. Prepare evidence supporting the proposed guardian. Section 5(4) requires evidence proving three matters: consent to act by the proposed guardian, that they are a proper person to act, and that they have no interest adverse to that of the infant. Evidence should be in affidavit form addressing these points and identifying any solicitor who will act for the guardian (s 5(8)).

4. Ensure solicitor engagement. Because a guardian ad litem "must act by a solicitor" (s 5(8)), the application should include a solicitor’s retainer or affidavit confirming their role. The court may expect to see that the guardian will operate through a solicitor at hearings.

5. Check for existing guardianship under other laws. Before making an appointment, the court must inquire into the infant’s guardianship for other purposes (s 5(5)). If the infant is under the guardianship of the CEO under the Children and Community Services Act 2004, the court must serve notice on the CEO and give an opportunity to be heard. If that factual situation applies, ensure sufficient time to effect service and allow for the CEO’s response.

6. Prepare for notice directions. The court has discretion under s 5(6) to order that notice need not be served on the infant and to give directions about persons to be given notice and the manner of service. If seeking an order that notice not be served, the applicant should provide reasons and evidence as to why non-service is appropriate.

7. If appointment is obtained but the infant will not intervene, be aware of evidentiary limits. An infant who does not intervene remains entitled to representation at hearings (s 5(7)) but is not entitled to adduce evidence. If the infant’s testimony is important, consider applications for intervention or other means of putting evidence before the court.

8. Manage costs exposure. Section 7 allows the court to order that costs of representation be paid by a party, charged to a fund in which the infant has an interest, or to the Suitors’ Fund. If you are a party at risk of paying costs, prepare submissions on appropriateness of ordering costs against you. If you represent the infant, consider whether the Suitors’ Fund or an infant’s fund is an available source and be prepared to justify reliance on such sources.

9. If seeking removal of a guardian, follow summons and service rules. Section 6(2) requires a summons for removal, which must be served on the guardian unless the court orders otherwise. Prepare the summons and evidence to satisfy the court that removal is appropriate, and if urgency requires non-service, seek an order under s 6(2) dispensing with service and provide reasons.

10. Monitor rules of court and regulations. Section 4 anticipates that rules of court or Governor-made regulations will supply practice and procedure. Confirm the current rules and any regulations applying to the court where relief is sought, as practice may differ across courts named in s 3(1). Rules may specify forms, timelines, and service methods that supplement the Act.

11. Anticipate cross-institutional issues. If proceedings intersect with the Children’s Court or involve infants under statutory guardianship, engage early with the relevant executive agency (CEO) and comply with notice obligations in s 5(5). If the matter may fall into a federal/non-federal jurisdictional divide (Family Court), verify whether the Act applies in the particular jurisdiction (s 3(1)(c)).

12. Document the appointment to avoid later challenges. Keep contemporaneous records showing the evidentiary basis for appointment, service of notices, and the solicitor’s instructions. Because the Act allows removal and because appointments may not bind an infant who is not a party (s 5(9)), solid procedural records reduce the risk of successful procedural attack.

13. Consider strategic choices about intervention vs representation-only posture. Because representation without intervention bars adducing evidence (s 5(7)), weigh the benefits of keeping the infant out of party status against the potential need for testimonial evidence. If binding effect is required, make arrangements to bring the infant into proceedings as a party where feasible.

14. If relying on public funding (Suitors’ Fund), prepare the necessary proofs. Section 7 permits charges to the Suitors’ Fund. Ensure compliance with any procedural requirements under the Suitors’ Fund Act 1964 for drawing on that fund where necessary.

Following these steps will address the principal statutory obligations and practical pitfalls the Act creates. Always verify contemporaneous rules of court and any regulations under s 4, and if the infant is subject to statutory guardianship, comply with the notice and hearing obligations vis-à-vis the CEO in s 5(5).