Marino (a pseudonym) v Bello (a pseudonym) [2022] NSWCA 50
The Court declined to refer the applicant for pro bono assistance as there was a lack of obvious merit, failed amendments to pleadings, previous unsuccessful pro bono referral, and no persuasive indication that pro bono legal assistance would bring likely benefit to the applicant or the proceedings. The Court's discretion was not exercised in favour of the applicant.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 28 March 2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Pro Bono Referral and Review of Registrar's Orders / Interlocutory Motion/procedural Ruling
- Outcome
- Application for pro bono referral dismissed; notices of motion dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['application for Pro Bono Assistance' 'referral Criteria Under UCPR R 7.36']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Pro Bono Referral and Review of Registrar's Orders / Interlocutory Motion/procedural Ruling
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Should the Court refer the applicant for pro bono legal assistance under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) r 7.36?' 'Does the applicant meet the referral criteria including means, complexity, and previous assistance?' 'Should the notices of motion (5 November 2021 and 25 March 2022) be dismissed?']
Ratio Decidendi
The Court declined to refer the applicant for pro bono assistance as there was a lack of obvious merit, failed amendments to pleadings, previous unsuccessful pro bono referral, and no persuasive indication that pro bono legal assistance would bring likely benefit to the applicant or the proceedings. The Court's discretion was not exercised in favour of the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application for pro bono referral dismissed; notices of motion dismissed
Orders
- ['Dismiss the notice of motion of 5 November 2021 in respect of the application for pro bono assistance.' 'Dismiss the notice of motion of 25 March 2022.' 'Order the applicant to pay the costs of the 3-5th respondents on the motion.']
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment