QVB Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Le [2022] NSWSC 1250

QVB Pharmacy Pty Ltd v Le [2022] NSWSC 1250

The Court was satisfied that referral was in the interests of the proper administration of justice because Mr Le's financial incapacity was accepted, the pleaded misleading or deceptive conduct claim was of some complexity, there was evidence of a factual contest and an arguable defence, and it would be difficult for Mr Le to properly present the case without legal representation, particularly given his health issues.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application for Referral for Pro Bono Assistance Pursuant to Part 7, Division 9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) / Duty Judge Application Before Hearing
Outcome
Application granted; the first defendant was referred for pro bono legal assistance.
Legal Topics
['pro Bono Referral' 'representation' 'interests of the Administration of Justice' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer Law'] ['pro Bono Referral' 'representation' 'interests of the Administration of Justice' 'misleading or Deceptive Conduct']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application for Referral for Pro Bono Assistance Pursuant to Part 7, Division 9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) / Duty Judge Application Before Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to refer David Le to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel under r 7.36(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether Mr Le's position in the proceedings was reasonably arguable or not completely without merit for the purposes of a pro bono referral." "Whether Mr Le's financial incapacity, health issues, and the complexity of the proceedings supported referral for legal assistance."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was satisfied that referral was in the interests of the proper administration of justice because Mr Le's financial incapacity was accepted, the pleaded misleading or deceptive conduct claim was of some complexity, there was evidence of a factual contest and an arguable defence, and it would be difficult for Mr Le to properly present the case without legal representation, particularly given his health issues.

Court Disposition

Application granted; the first defendant was referred for pro bono legal assistance.

Orders

  • ['I refer the first defendant, David Le, to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance pursuant to r 7.36(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' 'I direct that the following documents be provided to the panel at the time of the referral: a copy of...