Clarke v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2021] NSWSC 1184

Clarke v Commissioner of Corrective Services [2021] NSWSC 1184

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the plaintiff was already pursuing assistance through the same pro bono pathway, the avenues for legal assistance had not been fully explored, a referral would do no more than place him on the path he was already on, and despite some complexity in the proceedings the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 September 2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure; Application for Referral for Pro Bono Legal Assistance / Notice of Motion Filed on 18 August 2021 Determined by Duty Judge
Outcome
The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 18 August 2021 was dismissed and costs were reserved.
Legal Topics
['pro Bono Referral' 'interests of the Administration of Justice' 'self Represented Litigant' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) Rr 7.36 and 7.37']
['civil Procedure'] ['pro Bono Referral' 'interests of the Administration of Justice' 'self Represented Litigant' 'uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (nsw) Rr 7.36 and 7.37']

Source-derived case record

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

Civil Procedure; Application for Referral for Pro Bono Legal Assistance / Notice of Motion Filed on 18 August 2021 Determined by Duty Judge

  1. 1 ['Whether the plaintiff should be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister and/or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel under r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the plaintiff's means, capacity to obtain legal assistance outside the scheme, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, and other relevant matters made the referral in the interests of the administration of justice." 'Whether the broad form of legal assistance sought by the plaintiff should be granted.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Notice of Motion was dismissed because the plaintiff was already pursuing assistance through the same pro bono pathway, the avenues for legal assistance had not been fully explored, a referral would do no more than place him on the path he was already on, and despite some complexity in the proceedings the plaintiff was a qualified and experienced solicitor who had demonstrated a strong capacity to prepare, present and explain his case. The Court was not satisfied that referral for the assistance sought was in the interests of the administration of justice.

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 18 August 2021 was dismissed and costs were reserved.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's Notice of Motion filed on 18 August 2021 is dismissed." 'The question of costs of the Notice of Motion is reserved.']