Hetherington-Gregory v All Vehicle Services (No 2)

In *Hetherington-Gregory v All Vehicle Services (No 2)*, the applicant sought a referral to a legal practitioner on the Pro Bono Panel. The underlying dispute involved allegations by the plaintiff that a public authority had breached its duty of care by refusing to issue a certificate of roadworthiness. The application for referral was heard by Basten JA of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether the substantive matter had reasonable prospects of success and whether it was in the interests of justice to refer the applicant to the Pro Bono Panel. These considerations were to be assessed in light of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), specifically rule 7.36, which governs such applications.

Basten JA considered the prospects of success of the substantive claim, referencing the principles discussed in *Nuha Ibrahim Dafaalla v Concord Repatriation General Hospital* [2007] NSWSC 602. The Court determined that the substantive matter did not possess reasonable prospects of success, and consequently, it was not in the interests of justice to grant the referral.

The application for referral to the Pro Bono Panel was dismissed, with no order as to the costs of the application.