The case of Davies v Ambulance Victoria [2025] FedCFamC2G 111 demonstrates the problem of unrepresented litigants both for themselves and for courts. Ms Davis was an Ambulance Victoria paramedic who was representing herself in an action alleging unfair dismissal.  Surprisingly Ms Davies is seeking ([11]):

… a remedy in excess of $5,000,000… her claims are wide-ranging and she makes very serious allegations including “potential perjury and perverting the course of justice, negligence, serious misconduct and potential corruption”… A corollary is that Ms Davies must identify her claim with precision so that Ambulance Victoria can know the case it has to meet.

Courts are mindful that self-represented or un-represented litigants are at a disadvantage as they are not familiar with the court’s rules and procedures. Courts have to be careful not to allow that disadvantage to deny a legitimate claim but there is a limit to how far they can go to assist a self-represented person.  As the Court said (at [6]):

The requirements of formal pleadings can create challenges for self-represented litigants, who do not have a familiarity with formal court processes. Wheelahan J remarked in Gunawardena v Boeing Aerostructures Australia Pty Ltd (Strike out Application) [2024] FCA 1206 at [5] of the self-represented applicant in that case that “she should not be placed at a disadvantage in terms of the courts practice and procedure because she is self-represented”… It is, however, the court’s duty to ensure a fair trial for all parties …

The Statement of Claim issued by Ms Davies was ‘171 pages and 745 paragraphs long’ ([19]).  At [17] Champion J said:

Ms Davies’ pleading does not comply with the fundamental principles of pleading.  Importantly it does not meet “one of the main purposes of pleadings … to define the issues in dispute with sufficient clarity to enable the opposite party to understand the case he or she has to meet and to provide him or her with an adequate opportunity to prepare to meet that case” … In addition, it does not enable the court to know what issues are to be determined …

And at [21]-[25]

… The pleading has the character of asking the court to engage in a broad inquiry as to the rights and wrongs of events in Ms Davies’ employment at Ambulance Victoria. Insufficient work has been done to identify only the material facts and the links between those material facts and alleged breaches of the FW Act…

The Second SOC [Statement of Claim] is excessively long, material facts are obscured by extraneous matters and the cross-references make it impossible to follow. The content and structure of the Second SOC is likely to cause delay in the proceeding. The Second SOC does not disclose, but obscures, any cause of action.

The Court agreed to strike out the claim but, because Ms Davies was un-represented and she ‘should be afforded a reasonable opportunity to put her case’ the Court did give permission to allow her to refile her claim hopefully taking into account the advice from the Court, and from Ambulance Victoria (at [31]) to accurately identify what she is alleging and to link her allegations to relevant law.

Discussion

People representing themselves is very common.  Lawyers are expensive and we shouldn’t have a legal system that is so complex that people with good claims cannot have them tested.  But there are rules that apply to try and ensure speedy and cost-effective dispute resolution and self-represented litigants often don’t know them, or ignore them, leading in fact to longer and more expensive proceedings.

In particular courts are not general tribunals of inquiry where a party can raise any manner of things, in this case over the history of Ms Davies employment (and see the discussion on the ‘Role of the Court’ in the post Claim of alleged racial discrimination by AHPRA and Paramedicine Board dismissed (January 16, 2025)).  A court is there to determine issues according to law and in particular the law relating to the remedy sought.  If an applicant is seeking a remedy for unfair dismissal, they need to know what the law says they need to prove and then identify the ‘material facts’ that go to those issues alone.  

Setting out a narrative (see [19]-[21]) of all of one’s grievances and hoping the court will find a remedy is not an appropriate way to frame a claim. 

Conclusion

People are entitled to represent themselves and court’s do make significant effort to try and assist them and to find out if they have a real claim; but there is a limit and a court cannot take on the role of advocate nor is it there as an investigative tribunal.   A court is there to adjudicate the dispute between the parties based on the nature of the claim made and the remedy sought.  A litigant who thinks their claim is worth $5,000,000 would think it was probably worth investing in a lawyer to sure up the claim.

This blog is made possible with generous financial support from (in alphabetical order) the Australasian College of Paramedicine, the Australian Paramedics Association (NSW), the Australian Paramedics Association (Qld), Natural Hazards Research Australia, NSW Rural Fire Service Association and the NSW SES Volunteers Association. I am responsible for the content in this post including any errors or omissions. Any opinions expressed are mine, and do not necessarily reflect the opinion or understanding of the donors.

This blog is a general discussion of legal principles only.  It is not legal advice. Do not rely on the information here to make decisions regarding your legal position or to make decisions that affect your legal rights or responsibilities. For advice on your particular circumstances always consult an admitted legal practitioner in your state or territory.