Odlum v Stephen Friend t/as Friend & Co Lawyers and anor (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1408

Odlum v Stephen Friend t/as Friend & Co Lawyers and anor (No 2) [2021] NSWSC 1408

The motion was dismissed because the Court had no power to appoint a barrister, Ms Odlum did not establish special reasons for a further pro bono referral, and the belated adjournment application was inconsistent with the overriding purpose and the interests of justice given the age of the proceedings, the fixed hearing, her repeated non-compliance with orders, failure to make timely applications, and lack of basis for confidence that she would comply after any adjournment.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
02 November 2021
Procedural Posture
Procedural Ruling in Proceedings Alleging Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Advice / Plaintiff's Motion for Court Appointed Barrister or Further Pro Bono Referral and Adjournment of Hearing
Outcome
Motion dismissed.
Legal Topics
['pro Bono Referral' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'electronic Court Book']
['practice and Procedure' 'civil Procedure' 'professional Negligence' 'fair Trading'] ['pro Bono Referral' 'adjournment' 'case Management' 'non Compliance With Court Orders' 'electronic Court Book']

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

Procedural Ruling in Proceedings Alleging Negligence and Misleading and Deceptive Advice / Plaintiff's Motion for Court Appointed Barrister or Further Pro Bono Referral and Adjournment of Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court had power to appoint a barrister to represent the plaintiff.' 'Whether special reasons were established for a further referral for pro bono legal assistance under r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW).' "Whether the plaintiff's belated adjournment application should be granted in light of her lack of readiness, health concerns, complaints about the court book and alleged computer tampering, and her failures to comply with Court orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the Court had no power to appoint a barrister, Ms Odlum did not establish special reasons for a further pro bono referral, and the belated adjournment application was inconsistent with the overriding purpose and the interests of justice given the age of the proceedings, the fixed hearing, her repeated non-compliance with orders, failure to make timely applications, and lack of basis for confidence that she would comply after any adjournment.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The plaintiff's motion seeking adjournment of the hearing and appointment of a barrister or further pro bono referral was dismissed." "By consent, the hearing was adjourned until the following day after refusal of the plaintiff's applications."]