Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 397

Maxwell-Smith v S & E Hall Pty Ltd [2013] NSWCA 397

Although the applicants lacked the means to obtain legal representation and had been refused assistance by another legal assistance scheme, they had obtained pro bono assistance under a referral within the preceding 3 years and had received substantial assistance on previous occasions. They did not demonstrate special reasons justifying a further referral, and the Court was not satisfied that referral was in the interests of the administration of justice. The other requested orders concerning appeal books and court fees should not be made because established procedures existed for those matters.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 November 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion for Referral for Pro Bono Assistance in Connection With an Appeal Against a District Court Decision
Outcome
The applicants' notice of motion was dismissed, with no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['referral to Pro Bono Panel' 'special Reasons for Further Referral' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 7.36' 'waiver or Postponement of Court Fees']
['civil Procedure'] ['referral to Pro Bono Panel' 'special Reasons for Further Referral' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, R 7.36' 'waiver or Postponement of Court Fees']

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

Interlocutory Application / Notice of Motion for Referral for Pro Bono Assistance in Connection With an Appeal Against a District Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be referred for pro bono assistance under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005, r 7.36.' 'Whether the applicants had demonstrated special reasons justifying a further referral after obtaining assistance under a previous referral within the immediately preceding period of 3 years.' 'Whether the Court should make directions assisting the applicants to prepare appeal books and postpone or waive court fees.']

Ratio Decidendi

Although the applicants lacked the means to obtain legal representation and had been refused assistance by another legal assistance scheme, they had obtained pro bono assistance under a referral within the preceding 3 years and had received substantial assistance on previous occasions. They did not demonstrate special reasons justifying a further referral, and the Court was not satisfied that referral was in the interests of the administration of justice. The other requested orders concerning appeal books and court fees should not be made because established procedures existed for those matters.

Court Disposition

The applicants' notice of motion was dismissed, with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' notice of motion is dismissed." 'No order as to costs.']