A decision to grant or refuse permission for a party to be represented by a lawyer pursuant to s596 cannot be properly characterised as a mere procedural decision, as it may fundamentally change the dynamics and manner in which a hearing is conducted.

The normal position is that a party must appear on their own behalf before Fair Work Australia, and this normal position may only be departed from where an application for permission has been made and resolved in accordance with law, specifically where one or more of the requirements imposed by s596(2) have been taken into account and considered.

Even if a request for representation is made and one or more of the requirements in s596(2) is satisfied, the satisfaction of any requirement is merely a condition precedent to the subsequent exercise of the discretion; s596(2) provides that FWA 'may grant permission' and satisfaction of the criteria need not automatically dictate that the discretion be exercised in favour of granting permission.

The appearance of lawyers to represent parties to a hearing runs the very real risk that what was intended by the legislature to be an informal procedure will be burdened by unnecessary formality.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for legal representation is a decision which may fundamentally change the dynamics of a hearing and is not a mere procedural decision; the legislative intent is that granting permission is far from a formal act, with the appearance of lawyers risking unnecessary formality in what was intended as an informal procedure.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for legal representation under s.596 fundamentally changes the dynamics and manner in which a hearing is conducted. The satisfaction of any s.596(2) requirement is a condition precedent to the exercise of discretion; meeting a requirement does not automatically dictate that permission must be granted.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for representation by a lawyer under s 596 cannot be characterised as a mere procedural decision; it fundamentally changes the dynamics and manner of a hearing. Permission may only be granted where the requirements of s 596(2) have been satisfied and considered.

Deciding whether to grant permission for legal representation is a two-step process: first, the Commission decides if at least one of the statutory requirements has been met and if so that activates the discretion about whether to give permission; second, the Commission decides whether to exercise the discretion and grant permission.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for a party to be represented by a lawyer pursuant to s.596 cannot be properly characterised as a mere procedural decision, and the legislative intent indicates that granting permission is far from a mere formal act.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for a party to be represented by a lawyer pursuant to s.596 is not a mere procedural decision but one that may fundamentally change the dynamics and manner of a hearing. Permission may be granted only if one of the requirements in s.596(2) is satisfied, and even satisfaction of those requirements does not automatically dictate that the discretion must be exercised in favour of granting permission.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for representation by a lawyer pursuant to s.596 is a decision which may fundamentally change the dynamics and manner in which a hearing is conducted; permission may only be granted where one or other of the requirements in s.596(2) is satisfied, and satisfaction of any requirement is a condition precedent to the exercise of discretion but does not automatically dictate permission must be granted.

A decision to grant or refuse permission for a party to be represented by a lawyer pursuant to s.596 cannot be properly characterised as a mere procedural decision; it is a decision which may fundamentally change the dynamics and manner in which a hearing is conducted. Permission may only be granted where one or other of the requirements in s.596(2) are satisfied, and even then satisfaction of any requirement need not of itself dictate that the discretion is automatically exercised in favour of granting permission.