Odlum v Friend [2022] NSWSC 252

Odlum v Friend [2022] NSWSC 252

The plaintiff did not establish special reasons for a further referral for pro bono assistance under r 7.36(2A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), and the only basis for vacating the hearing date was connected to the pro bono referral, which was refused; accordingly, the motion was dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Parties
Plaintiff: Judith Anne Odlum; First Defendant: Stephen Friend trading as Friend and Co Lawyers; Second Defendant: Andrew J Paterson
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 2022
Procedural Posture
Application / Notice of Motion for Referral to Pro Bono Panel and Adjournment
Outcome
notice of motion dismissed
Legal Topics
Referral to Pro Bono Panel, Vacating Hearing Date

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Judith Anne Odlum

Plaintiff

Stephen Friend trading as Friend and Co Lawyers

First Defendant

Andrew J Paterson

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application / Notice of Motion for Referral to Pro Bono Panel and Adjournment

  1. 1 Whether special reasons for referral to pro bono panel for legal assistance are established
  2. 2 Whether hearing date should be vacated

Ratio Decidendi

The plaintiff did not establish special reasons for a further referral for pro bono assistance under r 7.36(2A) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), and the only basis for vacating the hearing date was connected to the pro bono referral, which was refused; accordingly, the motion was dismissed and costs ordered against the plaintiff.

Court Disposition

notice of motion dismissed

Orders

  • The plaintiff's notice of motion is dismissed
  • The plaintiff to pay the defendants' costs of the notice of motion