Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2015] NSWCA 136

Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd [2015] NSWCA 136

The Court was not satisfied that the case was appropriate for referral to the pro bono panel under r 7.36, given the applicant's capability, prior legal representation, the history of previous lawyers ceasing to act, the large amounts at stake, and the limited resource of pro bono services. Trial by jury is not available for appeals before the Court of Appeal under s 85 of the Supreme Court Act. Submissions in reply by the applicants may be extended to 15 pages. All other orders sought are refused for want of evidence, procedural fairness, lack of jurisdiction, or irrelevance to the appeal.

Parties
1st Applicant: James Woodward Neale; 2nd Applicant: JW Neale Pty Ltd (Receivers and Manager Appointed); 1st Respondent: Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd; 2nd Respondent: Brett Stephen Lord; 3rd Respondent: Stephen James Parbery; 4th Respondent: Secured Global Opportunity Ltd
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 May 2015
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion Pending Appeal
Outcome
Applicant's notice of motion dismissed except to the limited extent of allowing increased page limit for reply submissions; costs ordered against applicant.
Legal Topics
Pro Bono Referral, Jury Trial on Appeal, Appeal Procedure, Interlocutory Relief
Civil Procedure Pro Bono Referral Jury Trial on Appeal Appeal Procedure Interlocutory Relief

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James Woodward Neale

1st Applicant

JW Neale Pty Ltd (Receivers and Manager Appointed)

2nd Applicant

Commonwealth Bank of Australia Ltd

1st Respondent

Brett Stephen Lord

2nd Respondent

Stephen James Parbery

3rd Respondent

Secured Global Opportunity Ltd

4th Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Interlocutory Procedural Ruling on Notice of Motion Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to refer applicant for pro bono legal assistance under UCPR r 7.36
  2. 2 Whether to permit trial by jury on appeal under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) s 85
  3. 3 Whether various interlocutory orders regarding property, evidence, and investigations should be made

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that the case was appropriate for referral to the pro bono panel under r 7.36, given the applicant's capability, prior legal representation, the history of previous lawyers ceasing to act, the large amounts at stake, and the limited resource of pro bono services. Trial by jury is not available for appeals before the Court of Appeal under s 85 of the Supreme Court Act. Submissions in reply by the applicants may be extended to 15 pages. All other orders sought are refused for want of evidence, procedural fairness, lack of jurisdiction, or irrelevance to the appeal.

Court Disposition

Applicant's notice of motion dismissed except to the limited extent of allowing increased page limit for reply submissions; costs ordered against applicant.

Orders

  • Vary the orders made on 13 April 2015 to permit submissions in reply not exceeding 15 pages to be filed and served by 16 July 2015, strictly in reply to the written submissions filed on 7 April 2015.
  • Otherwise dismiss the notice of motion filed 13 April 2015.