Sebie v Pham [2021] NSWSC 470

Sebie v Pham [2021] NSWSC 470

The Court was not persuaded that a referral for pro bono legal assistance should be made because of the history of the related 2015 proceedings, the absence of evidence of attempts to obtain pro bono assistance outside the scheme, doubts about Mrs Sebie's capacity to provide instructions, the apparent inappropriateness or otiose nature of relief sought following the sale of the Chiswick Property, the need to recast any claim to funds held in court, and the onerous obligations that a referral would impose on any legal representative accepting it.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 May 2021
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion for Pro Bono Referral in Equity Proceedings / Application Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Notice of motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['unrepresented Litigant' 'pro Bono Referral' 'legal Incapacity and Tutor' 'interests in Proceeds of Sale of Property']
['civil Procedure' 'equity' 'real Property'] ['unrepresented Litigant' 'pro Bono Referral' 'legal Incapacity and Tutor' 'interests in Proceeds of Sale of Property']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion for Pro Bono Referral in Equity Proceedings / Application Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the second plaintiff should be referred to the registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel under r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the circumstances, including the second plaintiff's means, capacity to obtain assistance outside the scheme, apparent capacity to give instructions, and the nature and merits of the proceedings, justified a pro bono referral."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not persuaded that a referral for pro bono legal assistance should be made because of the history of the related 2015 proceedings, the absence of evidence of attempts to obtain pro bono assistance outside the scheme, doubts about Mrs Sebie's capacity to provide instructions, the apparent inappropriateness or otiose nature of relief sought following the sale of the Chiswick Property, the need to recast any claim to funds held in court, and the onerous obligations that a referral would impose on any legal representative accepting it.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the notice of motion filed on 23 October 2019 by the second plaintiff.']