Nash v State of NSW [2022] NSWDC 24

Nash v State of NSW [2022] NSWDC 24

Both the referral for pro bono representation and the application to vacate the imminent hearing were refused. The applicant failed to bring the applications promptly, gave no adequate explanation for delay, and despite some disadvantage as a self-represented litigant, the applicant had been legally represented for most of the proceeding and had sufficient opportunity to prepare. There was also uncertainty as to whether timely representation could be secured even if referral was granted. Granting an adjournment or referral at this late stage would not serve the interests of justice or the statutory objectives of efficient, timely, and cost-effective resolution of proceedings.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 February 2022
Procedural Posture
Civil / Interlocutory Application Before Hearing
Outcome
Application for referral to registrar for pro bono representation dismissed; application to vacate hearing dismissed.
Legal Topics
['application for Pro Bono Referral' 'application to Vacate Hearing' 'adjournment' 'self Represented Litigant' 'model Litigant Obligations']
['civil Procedure'] ['application for Pro Bono Referral' 'application to Vacate Hearing' 'adjournment' 'self Represented Litigant' 'model Litigant Obligations']

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 / Interlocutory Application Before Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the court should refer the applicant to the registrar for pro bono legal representation under r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)' 'Whether the court should vacate or adjourn the hearing date of 21 February 2022']

Ratio Decidendi

Both the referral for pro bono representation and the application to vacate the imminent hearing were refused. The applicant failed to bring the applications promptly, gave no adequate explanation for delay, and despite some disadvantage as a self-represented litigant, the applicant had been legally represented for most of the proceeding and had sufficient opportunity to prepare. There was also uncertainty as to whether timely representation could be secured even if referral was granted. Granting an adjournment or referral at this late stage would not serve the interests of justice or the statutory objectives of efficient, timely, and cost-effective resolution of proceedings.

Court Disposition

Application for referral to registrar for pro bono representation dismissed; application to vacate hearing dismissed.

Orders

  • ["Plaintiff's notice of motion dated 3 February 2022 is dismissed with costs." "Plaintiff to pay the defendant's costs associated with responding to the informal application to vacate the hearing."]