Amgad v Cairns

[2022] NSWCA 101

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:

Amgad v Cairns [2022] NSWCA 101

Hearing dates:

20 June 2022

Date of orders:

22 June 2022

Decision date:

22 June 2022

Before:

Gleeson JA

Decision:

Dismiss the applicant’s application for referral for legal assistance under UCPR, r 7.36

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for pro bono referral under UCPR r 7.36 – where proposed appeal is devoid of merit – where Applicant has a prolonged grievance against his former counsel – where applicant unlikely to accept advice explaining defects in his case

Legislation Cited:

Limitation Act 1969 (NSW), s 14

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36

Cases Cited:

M v Director General, Department of Family and Community Services [2013] NSWCA 118

Renshaw v NSW Lotteries Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Jamal Amgad (Self-represented – Applicant)
Stephen William Cairns (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:
Jamal Amgad (Self-represented – Applicant)

Solicitors:
Jamal Amgad (self-represented – Applicant)

File Number(s):

2022/14115

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

District Court of New South Wales

Jurisdiction:

Civil

Date of Decision:

3 December 2021

Before:

Robison DCJ

File Number(s):

2020/144093

Judgment

1. GLEESON JA: Application is made by Jamal Amgad by notice of motion filed 28 April 2022 for an order for pro bono legal assistance under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), r 7.36.

2. Mr Amgad’s application is made in relation to his application for leave to appeal from a decision of a judge of the District Court on 3 December 2021, after a two-day trial, dismissing his claim for damages against the defendant, Mr Stephen William Cairns, a barrister, for alleged negligence in the conduct of judicial review proceedings heard in this Court in 2013.

The 2013 judicial review proceedings

3. Mr Amgad commenced judicial review proceedings in this Court with respect to a judgment of the District Court in its criminal jurisdiction on appeal from the Local Court; he described himself in his summons as “Mr Jon Jamal”. The background to the judicial review proceedings is as follows. On 10 November 2011, Mr Jon Jamal was found guilty in the Local Court of common assault of his wife and sentenced to a conditional good behaviour bond for 12 months. The Local Court also made a final apprehended violence order against Mr Jamal for two years, the protected persons being his former wife and their three children. Mr Jamal appealed against his conviction to the District Court and appealed against the apprehended violence order. The appeals were heard before the District Court in March and June 2012. The appeal on conviction was dismissed; the District Court confirmed the conviction and the sentence imposed by the magistrate, but amended the terms of the apprehended violence order.

4. Mr Jamal was represented in this Court on 2 October 2013 by Mr Cairns of counsel. His application for judicial review was advanced by Mr Cairns on the basis of an alleged failure to afford Mr Jamal procedural fairness on his District Court appeal. This…