This appendix gives, word for word in PRO SE's English, the twelve records the paper read, in the order of the case list. Each is a synthetic record, offered by PRO SE as general information and not as legal advice; none is a real case. The reference date PRO SE gives the library dates no case and confirms no current law.
Unproven authority
PRO SE question scope-counsel-authority-defects, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-counsel-authority-defects?lang=en.
How are the acts of a litigation representative who cannot prove the authority to represent dealt with?
In these practice materials, the document appointing the litigation representative and whether it is certified, whether the appointment is entered in the court record, and the records on orders to cure and ratification are checked.
One interpretation holds that a defect in the document of proof or in authority is a procedural matter resolved through an order to cure and ratification.
Another interpretation holds that where the defect remains unresolved, the central question is who bears the litigation costs caused by that act.
In what order should cases where the defect is cured be separated from cases where it remains uncured?
The matter is looked at again if compliance with the order to cure, ratification, a costs decision, or a dismissal is newly confirmed.
A defect found later
PRO SE question scope-representative-defect-cure, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-representative-defect-cure?lang=en.
What becomes of litigation acts already done once a defect in the power of representation comes to light?
In these practice materials, with the debtor company and the supplier as parties, the appointment of the representative, the articles of incorporation and the resolutions of the general meeting are checked. Whether a document proving the power of representation is attached to the case record is looked at as well.
One view holds that an act done by a representative whose authority was defective takes effect retroactively from when it was done if a properly authorized representative ratifies it.
One interpretation holds that without ratification doubt remains over the effect of what was already done, and that permission to act provisionally does not by itself cure the defect.
What marks the line between before and after ratification by the representative once the defect is cured?
The analysis is looked at again if a limit under the articles or a resolution of the general meeting is newly confirmed, or if the document proving the power of representation differs.
An internal limit
PRO SE question scope-counsel-mandate-limits, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-counsel-mandate-limits?lang=en.
Can a company narrow the authority it gave its litigation representative by an internal agreement?
In these practice materials, the scope of the power of attorney and whether a separate document grants special authority are checked. The mandate relationship between the debtor company and the litigation representative is also examined.
One interpretation holds that an internal agreement cannot narrow the authority of a litigation representative who is a lawyer, so the authority before the court stays as entrusted.
Another interpretation holds that the authority of a litigation representative who is not a lawyer can be limited, and that limit also has effect before the court.
Which must be settled first, the internal instructions or their effect before the court?
The matter is looked at again if a new mandate document appears or the makeup of the representatives changes.
An internal resolution
PRO SE question scope-representative-internal-approval, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-representative-internal-approval?lang=en.
Does an internal resolution decide whether a representative's withdrawal of suit or settlement takes effect?
In these practice materials, the articles, the minutes of the general meeting, the registered particulars and the withdrawal or settlement shown in the case record are looked at together.
One interpretation holds that without the internal resolution the representative's act is not attributed to the legal person, so the withdrawal or settlement has no effect.
One interpretation holds that a breach of the internal resolution concerns only the legal person and its representative and does not affect the litigation act toward the other party.
Must it first be decided whether the rules on special authority carry over unchanged to the representative of a legal person?
The matter is looked at again if the premise on how the articles read or whether the general meeting resolved differs.
Correcting counsel
PRO SE question scope-party-corrects-counsel, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-party-corrects-counsel?lang=en.
How far can a party correct what its litigation representative said at a hearing?
In these practice materials, the factual statements made at the hearing and the record of the party promptly withdrawing or correcting them are confirmed. Where an admission is at issue, the materials supporting a mistake are examined as well.
One interpretation holds that factual statements made by the litigation representative at the hearing lose their effect if the party promptly withdraws or corrects them.
Another interpretation holds that facts already fixed by an admission can be undone only on proof that the admission was contrary to the truth and resulted from a mistake.
How should a factual statement promptly corrected be told apart from an admission that can be withdrawn only on proof of mistake?
The matter is looked at again if the hearing record or the materials showing a mistake change.
Suing its own director
PRO SE question scope-company-v-own-director, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-company-v-own-director?lang=en.
When a company sues its own director, who represents the company?
In these practice materials, materials are needed to check the legal relationship between the debtor company and the director, how the representative is named, and how counsel was instructed.
One interpretation holds that if the dispute is not a matter in which interests conflict, the usual representative may represent the company.
One interpretation holds that where interests conflict, the usual representative has no power of representation and a separately appointed representative must act.
What decides the range of disputes in which the usual representative may stay in place?
The matter is looked at again if special rules for the type of company are confirmed, or if materials show a change in how the representative is named or in the conflict of interests.
No representative
PRO SE question scope-company-without-representative, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-company-without-representative?lang=en.
When a company has no representative, who can carry on a lawsuit against it?
In these practice materials, the records showing how the debtor company came to have no representative and where the lawsuit stopped are examined.
One interpretation holds that a provisional director appointed outside the lawsuit fills the vacancy, so later litigation acts are also handled through that director.
Another interpretation holds that a special representative may be appointed separately for the lawsuit, so within that power the special representative carries out litigation acts.
Whose acts should be entered in the case record: those of a provisional director or those of a special representative?
Once the vacancy is filled or a decision appointing a new representative is served, who acted is looked at again.
A dissolved company
PRO SE question scope-dissolved-company-party, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-dissolved-company-party?lang=en.
Can a dissolved company still be a party to a lawsuit, and who represents it?
To decide this question, the fact of dissolution, the materials appointing the liquidator and the right disputed in the lawsuit are checked.
One interpretation holds that for matters within the scope of liquidation, the dissolved company itself is the party and the liquidator represents it.
One interpretation holds that in a lawsuit concerning the bankruptcy estate, a separate person who manages the property is the party.
How is it decided whether what this lawsuit disputes belongs to the work of liquidation or concerns the bankruptcy estate?
The matter is looked at again if the company enters bankruptcy, a dispute beyond the scope of liquidation comes to light, or the liquidation rules of the Commercial Act are confirmed.
Company or representative
PRO SE question scope-alternative-defendants, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-alternative-defendants?lang=en.
When it is unclear whether the contracting party is the company or its representative personally, can both be sued as defendants together?
In these practice materials, the name and manner of signing shown in the contract and the papers showing how the price was paid are looked at together with a record of the dealings between the debtor company and a supplier.
One interpretation holds that if the claim against the company succeeds the claim against the representative personally cannot, and the reverse, so the two must proceed together as a contingent or alternative joinder of parties.
Another interpretation holds that where the two claims rest on different legal relationships and could both succeed, they are not claims that cannot stand together in law, so each must be dealt with separately.
To settle whether the claims cannot stand together in law, what should be looked at first?
The matter is looked at again if the legal relationships behind the claims are sorted out or new documentary evidence comes to light.
Same court, two cases
PRO SE question scope-company-and-ceo-insolvency-court, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-company-and-ceo-insolvency-court?lang=en.
While a company's rehabilitation case is pending, can its representative's own insolvency application be filed in the same court?
To decide this question, we look at materials covering where the corporate proceeding is pending, the nature of the individual application filed by the representative, and the general forum together with the location of the office. We need records that separately address whether the application can be filed in the same rehabilitation court and which division will take it.
One view is that there is room to bring the representative's individual proceeding before the rehabilitation court where the company's case is pending and run them together.
Another view is that even if both can be filed in the same rehabilitation court, the company's case and the individual's case may go to different divisions, so they cannot be said to sit before one division.
How should filing in the same court be distinguished from having the same division hear both cases?
We revisit this question if whether the company's case is pending, the representative's position, or the type of application changes. If transfer comes into question, the premises must also be checked again from the start.
The incumbent as administrator
PRO SE question scope-rehab-administrator-selection, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-rehab-administrator-selection?lang=en.
In a rehabilitation procedure, can an incumbent representative continue to serve as the administrator?
To assess this question, practice materials of this kind call for reviewing documents that show the governance structure and cash flows of the debtor company.
Where no grounds for exception exist, the incumbent representative may be read as proceeding, in principle, to serve as the administrator.
Where misappropriation of assets or mismanagement is the cause of financial insolvency, it may be read as an exception calling for the appointment of an outside person.
Must the same grounds for exception be re-evaluated with equal weight at the appointment stage and at the dismissal stage?
We return to the matter if new indications of funds misappropriation or evidence of managerial failure emerge.
The example's conditions
PRO SE question scope-example, a synthetic record in the Scope section, at https://pro-se.risconlabs.com/library/scope-example?lang=en.
What scope of small-claims cases and what conditions for representation did the example assume?
We review the body of the notice together with its example, as well as the provisions on scope of application and representation in litigation.
The example shows the structure of the explanation but does not carry over the conditions it assumed.
Even where a procedure looks similar on the surface, if the matters to which it applies, or the qualification to represent a party, differ, the direction of reference changes.
Which premise must first be checked before this example can be used as a reference?
If it is confirmed that the conditions assumed by the example and the conditions of the actual procedure differ, we look again.