Dynamic Insurance Services and its sole director are suing Steadfast Group, QBE Insurance (Australia) and Allianz Australia Insurance. According to the judgment, the applicants allege the three engaged in "anti-competitive agreements, misuse of market power, and exclusive dealing" under the Competition and Consumer Act, along with "statutory unconscionable conduct" under the Australian Consumer Law and the ASIC Act. Those claims have not been decided.
The ruling handed down on July 22, 2026 dealt only with a procedural question: could the company's sole director, who is also a co-applicant, run the company's case herself instead of engaging a lawyer?
Under the Federal Court Rules, an individual may be unrepresented, but a corporation "must not proceed in the Court other than by a lawyer." The director asked the court to waive that requirement, submitting that it would be more efficient, cost-effective and proportionate for her to represent the company.
The Federal Court declined and dismissed the application.
The judge accepted that the court has power to waive the rule but found the relevant factors weighed against doing so. On finances, the director's own affidavit, affirmed June 10, 2026, stated that she had the capacity to fund the company and was willing to provide it a loan, so the requirement was not an impediment to the company's access to justice.
The judge also found that the director's close connection to the dispute counted against her, describing it as "the very vice against which representation by a lawyer is intended to guard."
Complexity was a further factor. The case involves competition law and statutory unconscionable conduct, and the judge noted the statement of claim already contained "deficiencies that are likely to be raised or exploited by the respondents." The judge added that it was difficult to see how the claims could be proved without calling the director as a witness and without independent expert evidence, raising a risk to the objectivity expected of an advocate.
The application was dismissed, and the applicants were ordered to pay the respondents' costs.
For insurers and brokers, the practical point sits apart from the competition arguments: a company pursuing litigation of this kind must be represented by lawyers, and a director closest to the business may be the least suitable person to argue its case. The substantive claims against Steadfast, QBE and Allianz remain unproven and undecided. The court ruled only on the question of representation.
