[cthalupa]

> do not involve lawyers in vast majority of cases and encourage self-representation instead.

Sure, but if it's a corporation, who is going to represent the corporation besides a lawyer? In the US, some states explicitly do not allow a lawyer and require a different officer of the company represent them, but plenty do allow lawyers.

If Paris is taking Apple to the tribunal, there's no single human equivalent to Paris on Apple's side. This seems like the exact sort of situation where a lawyer is approved to represent somebody else.

[thelittleone]

You also get things like Stripe with mandatory arbitration. The arbitrator is chosen by Stripe. Naturally arbitrator wants to keep Stripe as a client.

Stripe terms allow them to hold the funds until 'investigation' is concluded but while held, they have the right to invest the funds and keep the profit.

[inkyoto]

> Sure, but if it's a corporation, who is going to represent the corporation besides a lawyer?

Under common law, lawyers (in the US sense) are not required on either side in the case of handling a dispute or a small claim.

Specifically in Australia, the company would have a complaint department, and the case would be dealt with by a complaint officer, not a lawyer.

If the scope of the case exceeds the tribunal's authority, the case is handled in the state's district court or in a federal court for cross-jurisdictional matters. The official title of the person representing the defendant (e.g. a company) in a courtroom is the barrister, but the case documentation and legal advice are provided by a solicitor.

[jackvalentine]

Hi, I’m closely involved in xCAT cases for my Australian organisation.

We send an in-house lawyer to represent us at every mediation and hearing.

Every complaint that goes to an official body is dealt with by the lawyers at that point. Only if they complain directly to us does our “complaints department” handle it.

[inkyoto]

I can't speak for CAT's outside NSW, but in NSW, under section 45 of the «Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 2013 (NSW)», a party (including a company that is the respondent) is not entitled to be represented by any person unless NCAT grants leave (permission) for representation[0], which is a separate step – the company must seek leave first for each case.

Only certain NCAT case types give an automatic right to representation, so a company can have a «lawyer» appear without seeking leave. NCAT’s own guidance[1] lists these as:

  Administrative review and regulation

  Professional discipline

  Retail leases

Then there is also a separate provision in the Consumer and Commercial Division for high value claims (e.g. over AU$30k) – NCAT’s guideline indicates it will usually permit legal representation where the other party has a lawyer, where there are complex issues, or where a party would be disadvantaged without representation.

Since I do not know the nature and specifics of your Australian organisation, I have nothing else of significance to contribute on that particular topic.

To sum it up, the most common dispute scenarios involve the following sequence of events: consumer ↝ complaint department ↝ state/federal level regulator, e.g. Department of Fair Trading (NSW), ACCC (federal) or similar ↝ ombudsman or xCAT or a court. The regulatorory step can sometimes be skipped.

[0] https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/how-ncat-works/prepare-for-your-hear...

[1] https://ncat.nsw.gov.au/how-ncat-works/prepare-for-your-hear...