On 14 September 2026, the Supreme Court of Victoria issued Practice Note SC GEN 26, a new Practice Note for self-represented litigants in civil proceedings in the Trial Division, the Court of Appeal and the Costs Court.

In delivering the practice note, the Supreme Court has stated that the number of cases involving self-represented litigants has increased in recent years and it is important that people understand the obligations, risks and responsibilities that accompany a decision to represent themselves.

While the Practice Note covers the full range of procedural expectations for unrepresented parties, it also includes a table of pseudo-legal arguments which have been considered and rejected by courts across Australia, to combat common misinformation that these are real legal arguments. These pseudo-legal arguments are drawn from the ’sovereign citizen’ and ‘freeman on the land’ movements. Critically, the Practice Note provides that Registry staff may reject documents submitted for filing if they rely on these arguments.

Overview of the Practice Note

The Practice Note consolidates the Court's expectations of self-represented litigants in a single document. Key factors include:

Further, self-represented litigants are provided with an outline of what the Court does and what it cannot do, as well as information regarding where they can obtain legal help.

The annexure: Pseudo-legal arguments and sovereign citizen litigants

The Annexure lists eight categories of pseudo-legal argument that courts have rejected. For each, the Practice Note sets out the argument, the correct legal position and supporting authority. Registry staff can reject filings relying on these arguments at the point of submission.

Implications

The Practice Note and Annexure may be cited in submissions seeking strike-out or dismissal of proceedings relying on pseudo-legal theories.

The power to reject pseudo-legal filings at the Registry should reduce the burden on practitioners of responding to unmeritorious documents. Where such filings are served, practitioners should promptly draw the Practice Note to the Court's attention and consider whether summary dismissal or strike-out relief is appropriate.

Depending on the circumstances, practitioners may consider seeking indemnity costs where a litigant persists with pseudo-legal arguments despite authority demonstrating that those arguments have repeatedly been rejected.

Sovereign citizen litigants are often associated with aggressive communications. The Practice Note confirms that abusive or threatening behaviour may be reported to police. Practitioners should document all communications and raise conduct concerns with the Court where appropriate.

The Practice Note expressly discourages self-represented litigants from using AI tools as a source of legal advice, warning that AI systems may generate fictitious cases, legislation and legal propositions. It emphasises that reliance on AI is not an excuse for providing inaccurate information to the Court.

Key takeaway

Practice Note SC GEN 26 is one of the most detailed responses issued by an Australian superior court to the issue of pseudo-legal arguments in civil proceedings.

For practitioners, the Annexure provides a useful reference point when responding to pseudo-legal arguments and seeking strike-out, summary dismissal or costs orders where appropriate. The ability of Registry staff to reject filings that rely on pseudo-legal arguments may reduce the cost and delay associated with responding to such material.

If you have any questions about Practice Note SC GEN 26 or its implications for your matter, contact our team.

¹ Stefan v McLachlan [2023] VSC 501 at [23]–[29]; Nelson v Greenman [2024] VSC 704 at [53]–[56].

² Shaw v Attorney-General (WA) [2004] WASC 144 at [12]; Stefan v McLachlan [2023] VSC 501 at [26].

³ Re Coles Supermarkets Australia Pty Ltd [2022] VSC 438 at [48]–[49]; Nelson v Greenman [2024] VSC 704 at [57].

⁴ Roberts v Harkness [2018] VSCA 215 at [67].

⁵ Rutledge v State of Victoria [2013] HCA 60; Sill v City of Wodonga [2018] VSCA 195.

⁶ Chia Gee v Martin [1905] HCA 70; MacDonald v County Court of Victoria [2013] VSC 109 at [39]–[40]; Holt v The King [2023] VSCA 163 at [20].

⁷ Sill v Wodonga [2018] VSCA 195.

8 Collis v Bank of Queensland Ltd [2021] VSCA 17 at [107]; May v HSBC Bank Australia Ltd [2025] VSCA 311 at [38], [40]–[41].