Rizk v FA Constructions Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 155

Rizk v FA Constructions Australia Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 155

There was good reason to conclude that Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46(4) did not extend to review of an administrative referral under UCPR r 7.36, so the motion would be incompetent. In any event, Barrett AJA's decision to limit the referral to advice on prospects of success was appropriate given Mr Rizk's prior pro bono referral, his rejection of assistance in the District Court, and the serious allegations of misconduct raised in the proposed appeal; no material error or plainly wrong exercise of discretion was shown.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 July 2016
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion to Review or Vary a Single Judge of Appeal's Pro Bono Referral Order / Court of Appeal Motion Under Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw), S 46(4)
Outcome
Notice of motion filed 6 May 2016 dismissed.
Legal Topics
['review of Single Judge of Appeal' 'referral for Pro Bono Assistance' 'competency of Motion' 'prospects of Success Advice' 'self Represented Litigant']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'pro Bono Legal Assistance'] ['review of Single Judge of Appeal' 'referral for Pro Bono Assistance' 'competency of Motion' 'prospects of Success Advice' 'self Represented Litigant']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion to Review or Vary a Single Judge of Appeal's Pro Bono Referral Order / Court of Appeal Motion Under Supreme Court Act 1970 (nsw), S 46(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether a referral for pro bono assistance under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36 is amenable to review under Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46(4).' 'Whether the limited referral for advice on prospects of success should be varied to provide full pro bono legal assistance for preparation and appearance on appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

There was good reason to conclude that Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 46(4) did not extend to review of an administrative referral under UCPR r 7.36, so the motion would be incompetent. In any event, Barrett AJA's decision to limit the referral to advice on prospects of success was appropriate given Mr Rizk's prior pro bono referral, his rejection of assistance in the District Court, and the serious allegations of misconduct raised in the proposed appeal; no material error or plainly wrong exercise of discretion was shown.

Court Disposition

Notice of motion filed 6 May 2016 dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Notice of motion filed 6 May 2016 dismissed.']