Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers; Hastwell v Dr Parmegiani [2022] NSWSC 1620

Hastwell v Harmers Workplace Lawyers; Hastwell v Dr Parmegiani [2022] NSWSC 1620

The Court was not satisfied that referral for pro bono assistance was in the interests of the administration of justice. The request effectively sought a lawyer to carry the whole proceedings to resolution, which was asking too much of the profession under r 7.36, and the Court considered the limited availability of pro bono resources and the likelihood that Mr Hastwell would not accept negative advice if given. The remaining timetabling relief was left to abide the outcome of Harmers Workplace Lawyers' notice of motion.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 November 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application for Referral for Pro Bono Legal Assistance / Notice of Motion Dated 4 November 2022
Outcome
The notices of motion dated 4 November 2022 were dismissed in each matter.
Legal Topics
['representation' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'case Management']
['civil Procedure'] ['representation' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance' 'case Management']

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

Civil Procedure Application for Referral for Pro Bono Legal Assistance / Notice of Motion Dated 4 November 2022

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should refer the plaintiff for pro bono legal assistance under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36.' 'Whether the interests of the administration of justice required referral for legal assistance in the circumstances.' "Whether other timetabling relief sought in the notices of motion should be dealt with before Harmers Workplace Lawyers' notice of motion."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court was not satisfied that referral for pro bono assistance was in the interests of the administration of justice. The request effectively sought a lawyer to carry the whole proceedings to resolution, which was asking too much of the profession under r 7.36, and the Court considered the limited availability of pro bono resources and the likelihood that Mr Hastwell would not accept negative advice if given. The remaining timetabling relief was left to abide the outcome of Harmers Workplace Lawyers' notice of motion.

Court Disposition

The notices of motion dated 4 November 2022 were dismissed in each matter.

Orders

  • ['The notice of motion of 4 November 2022 is dismissed.' 'Confirm the listing before the Registrar for directions on 29 November 2022.']