Managing Self-Representation: The Federal Court’s New Litigants in Person Practice Note
…Unsplash
Access to justice remains a cornerstone of the Australian legal system, yet there are individuals forced to appear in court without professional representation and navigate complex procedural rules, evidentiary requirements, and substantive law with minimal guidance due to prohibitive costs and the complexity of litigation.[i]
In March 2026, the Federal Court of Australia addressed this challenge with the Litigants in Person Practice Note (GUN-LIP), a practical guide designed to assist self-represented parties in navigating the complexities of federal litigation.[ii] Chief Justice Mortimer explained that the Practice Note ‘ensures that obligations and expectations are communicated to litigants in person from the beginning,’ enabling those without legal advice to understand the realities of court proceedings and make informed decisions about whether and how to proceed.[iii] The initiative reflects a broader trend, as within 2024-25, almost 500 proceedings involved litigants in person, particularly within administrative, constitutional, and commercial law[iv], with 37 per cent in New South Wales.[v]
While the Practice note clarifies procedure, it raises the question of whether guidance alone can overcome the structural challenges, or if deeper reforms are needed to balance procedural fairness with access to justice.
Legal Framework
Litigants in person are individuals who appear before the Court without legal representation. While permitted in Australian courts, self-representation poses significant challenges for those unfamiliar with legal procedure, evidentiary rules, and substantive law.[vi]
The Federal Court’s statutory framework, in s 37M-37N of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), requires disputes to be resolved ‘justly, quickly, and inexpensively’ and obliges parties to assist in this objective.[vii] In practice, it presupposes a level of legal competence from parties. Although the Court’s role is to explain procedural requirements and ensure orderly proceedings, it cannot guide litigation strategy, which self-represented litigants often lack.[viii]
The Litigants in Person Practice Note operationalises these principles to manage cases efficiently while maintaining judicial neutrality. Developed as part of the Court’s Litigants in Person and Pro Bono Project, it clarifies procedural expectations, emphasises compliance with court orders and outlines litigants’ responsibility in asserting arguable claims and maintaining respectful conduct.[ix]
The Practice Note in Action
Designed for accessibility, the Practice Note is written in plain English and translated into commonly spoken languages. It is automatically provided to new litigants in person who must acknowledge that they have read and understood it.[x]
It sets out key procedural obligations, including filing requirements and stages of proceedings, while warning of risks associated with self-representation, such as adverse costs orders or contempt findings.[xi] It also directs litigants to support services, including free or low-cost legal assistance, interpreters, and mental health resources.[xii]
The aim is to reduce the disadvantage faced by litigants while preserving the integrity and efficiency of the court by addressing the use of generative artificial intelligence, cautioning against reliance on legal advice due to risks of inaccuracy or jurisdictionally inappropriate information.[xiii]
Challenges and Limitations
Despite these innovations, structural challenges remain. The Note addresses information barriers, but it cannot resolve the broader “justice gap” created by the cost of legal representation and limited access to legal aid. Federal Court matters often involve complex statutory interpretation and procedural nuances, particularly in administrative or constitutional law, which remains inaccessible to self-represented litigants, who may rely on AI or pseudo-legal resources despite warnings.[xiv]
While the Note improves procedural transparency, it cannot substitute for professional legal expertise. It raises broader questions about how courts should manage self-represented litigants within an adversarial legal system that traditionally assumes professional legal representation.
Reform and Future Directions
Although the Practice Note provides an important foundation, meaningful access to justice requires broader institutional reforms. Federal Court proceedings often involve complex statutory interpretation and procedural requirements, making it difficult for unrepresented litigants to identify legal issues, gather admissible evidence or comply with court process. These challenges also create difficulties for judges, who must balance procedural fairness with the need to maintain judicial neutrality when assisting litigants in person.
An expanded pro bono support can provide critical legal advice early, helping individuals assess claims and avoid procedural errors, while strong early case management can clarify issues and narrow disputes before significant time and resources are spent.[xv]
Conclusion
The Litigants in Person Practice Note is a significant step towards improving procedural clarity and supporting self-representation in the Federal Court. By providing plain-language guidance, clarifying responsibilities, and highlighting available support, the Court seeks to promote fairness and efficiency. As the number of litigants in person grows, ensuring meaningful access to justice will likely require structural reforms that complement the Practice Note, including pro bono programs, procedural simplification, and targeted educational resources. The initiative illustrates the Court’s commitment to reconciling procedural expectations with the realities of self-representation, a balance that will remain central to the administration of justice in the years ahead.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
References
[i] Law Council of Australia, 'Litigants in Person Practice Note', Law Council of Australia (Web Page, 12 November 2025) <https://lawcouncil.au/resources/submissions/litigants-in-person-practice-note\> (‘ Law Council of Australia ').
[ii] Federal Court of Australia, Practice Note GPN-LIP: Litigants in Person, 5 March 2026.
[iii] Wendy Yang, 'Federal Court Launches Litigants in Person Practice Note', Law Society Journal (online, 5 March 2026) <https://lsj.com.au/articles/federal-court-launches-litigants-in-person-practice-note/> (‘Yang ’).
[iv] Federal Court of Australia, Annual Report 2024–25 (Report, 19 September 2025) 125 <https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0011/572888/FCA-AnnualReport2024-25.pdf>.
[v] Ibid.
[vi] 'Litigants in Person and Pro Bono Project', Federal Court of Australia (Web Page)<https://www.fedcourt.gov.au/going-to-court/i-am-a-party/litigants-in-person-and-pro-bono-project>.
[vii] Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) ss 37M-37N.
[viii] Ibid.
[ix] Federal Court of Australia, 'Launch of Federal Court's Litigants in Person Practice Note' (Media Release, 5 March 2026) <https://justinian.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2026/03/FCA-LIP-Media-Release-Final.pdf>.
[x] Queensland Law Society, 'Litigants in Person Practice Note', Proctor (online, 5 March 2026)<https://www.qlsproctor.com.au/2026/03/litigants-in-person-practice-note/>.
[xi] Law Council of Australia, 'Law Council Welcomes Federal Court's Litigants in Person Practice Note Initiative' (Media Release, 13 November 2025) <https://lawcouncil.au/media/news/law-council-welcomes-federal-court-s-litigants-in-person-practice-note-initiative>.
[xii] Yang (n iii).
[xiii] Bernise Carolino, 'Federal Court Practice Note for In-Person Litigants Should Address AI, Case Management: Law Council', LawyerMag (online, 16 November 2026)<https://www.thelawyermag.com/au/practice-areas/litigation-dispute-resolution/federal-court-practice-note-for-in-person-litigants-should-address-ai-case-management-law-council/556732> (‘Carolino’ ).
[xiv] Law Council of Australia (n i).
[xv] Carolino (n xiii).