Angius v Salier (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1648

Angius v Salier (No 3) [2019] NSWSC 1648

Although Mr Falk had been placed in a very difficult position by Mr Angius' failure to provide promised funds, leave to withdraw was refused because withdrawal shortly before a complex fixed trial created a real risk that Mr Angius would be self-represented, that the hearing would not be completed in the allocated time, and that defendants and other litigants would be prejudiced; the Court gave priority to the interests of litigants and its need for assistance from practitioners who accept trial instructions.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 November 2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application for Leave for Solicitor to Withdraw / Application Heard One Week Before the Fixed Trial Commencement Date
Outcome
Application for leave to withdraw refused, with liberty to re-apply on short notice if alternative representation is arranged.
Legal Topics
['withdrawal of Solicitor' 'leave of Court' 'trial Preparation' 'adjournment Risk' 'self Represented Litigants']
['civil Procedure'] ['withdrawal of Solicitor' 'leave of Court' 'trial Preparation' 'adjournment Risk' 'self Represented Litigants']

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 Leave for Solicitor to Withdraw / Application Heard One Week Before the Fixed Trial Commencement Date

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the plaintiff's solicitor should be granted leave to withdraw shortly before the trial fixed to commence on 28 November 2019." "Whether the likely consequences of withdrawal, including possible self-representation, adjournment pressure, and disruption to the allocated hearing time, justified refusing leave despite the client's failure to provide funds."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although Mr Falk had been placed in a very difficult position by Mr Angius' failure to provide promised funds, leave to withdraw was refused because withdrawal shortly before a complex fixed trial created a real risk that Mr Angius would be self-represented, that the hearing would not be completed in the allocated time, and that defendants and other litigants would be prejudiced; the Court gave priority to the interests of litigants and its need for assistance from practitioners who accept trial instructions.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to withdraw refused, with liberty to re-apply on short notice if alternative representation is arranged.

Orders

  • ['I refuse the application by Mr Falk for leave to withdraw under the Uniform Civil Procedures Rules (NSW), r 7.29.' "I grant liberty to Mr Falk to re-apply on 24 hours' notice for leave to withdraw in the event alternative legal representation can be arranged for Mr Angius."]