Amgad v Cairns

The applicant, Amgad, sought a referral for pro bono legal assistance under rule 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules (UCPR) in relation to a proposed appeal. The respondent was Cairns. The application was heard by Gleeson JA in the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the applicant's proposed appeal was sufficiently meritorious to warrant a referral for pro bono assistance, or conversely, whether the appeal was devoid of merit, thereby precluding such a referral. The Court also considered the applicant's history of grievances against his former legal representatives and the likelihood of him accepting advice regarding the deficiencies in his case.

Gleeson JA determined that the proposed appeal lacked merit. His Honour noted that the applicant had a prolonged grievance against his former counsel, which appeared to be a significant factor in his continued pursuit of the appeal. The Court concluded that the applicant was unlikely to accept advice that explained the fundamental defects in his case, rendering a referral for pro bono assistance inappropriate and futile.

Consequently, the applicant's application for referral for legal assistance under UCPR rule 7.36 was dismissed.