Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 22 min read

Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 121
Hearing dates: 1 July 2022
Date of orders: 7 July 2022
Decision date: 07 July 2022
Before: Ward P; Simpson AJA
Decision:

1.   Applicant’s notice of motion filed 16 June 2022 be dismissed with costs.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE — Court of Appeal — Application for review of decision pursuant to s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) of dismissal of applicant’s notice of motion seeking referral for pro bono legal assistance — Notice of motion dismissed

Legislation Cited:

Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), ss 19(2), 46(4)

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 7.35, 7.36, 51.2, 51.58

Workers Compensation Act 1987 (NSW), s 4(b)(i), 4(b)(ii)

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 352, 353

Cases Cited:

Avon Downs Pty Ltd v Federal Commissioner of Taxation (1949) 78 CLR 353; [1949] HCA 26

House v The King (1936) 55 CLR 499; [1936] HCA 40

Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd [2021] NSWPICPD 40

Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd [2022] NSWCA 88

Kiri Te Kanawa v Leading Edge Events Australia Pty Ltd [2007] NSWCA 274

Lo v Iverarch [2009] NSWCA 92

Patrick v Howorth [2002] NSWCA 285

Renshaw v New South Wales Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41

Rinehart v Welker (2011) 93 NSWLR 311; [2011] NSWCA 403

Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty Ltd (2004) 60 NSWLR 143; [2004] NSWCA 136

Category:Procedural rulings
Parties: Mohammed Javed Iqbal (Appellant)
Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd (Respondent)
Representation: Counsel:
M Iqbal (in person)
File Number(s): 2021/353147
Publication restriction: Nil

Judgment

  1. THE COURT: By notice of motion filed on 16 June 2022, the applicant (Mohammed Javed Iqbal), who is self-represented, seeks a review of the dismissal by Meagher JA on 7 June 2022 of Mr Iqbal’s notice of motion filed on 31 May 2022. In that notice of motion, Mr Iqbal sought an order pursuant to r 7.36(1) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) for referral for pro bono assistance in relation to his appeal brought under s 353 of the Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW) (the Act). That appeal is listed for hearing in this Court on 28 July 2022.

  2. Although not made clear in the notice of motion, it appears that the application for review is brought pursuant to s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) (Supreme Court Act).

  3. An application for review pursuant to s 46(4) of the Supreme Court Act is not an appeal (see s 19(2) of the Supreme Court Act and rr 51.2 and 51.58 of the UCPR). What is required is that the applicant (i.e., here, Mr Iqbal) must show that there has been an error of principle in the exercise of the relevant power or that the decision was plainly wrong (Transglobal Capital Pty Ltd v Yolarno Pty…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] NSWCA 121
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Mr. Iqbal, sought a review of a decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales to dismiss his notice of motion. This motion had sought a referral for pro bono legal assistance. The respondent was Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd. The review was brought before Ward P and Simpson AJA in the Court of Appeal pursuant to s 46(4) of the *Supreme Court Act 1970* (NSW).

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the primary judge had erred in dismissing Mr. Iqbal's application for a referral for pro bono legal assistance. This required the Court to consider the appropriate threshold for such referrals and the discretion vested in the court to grant them.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the primary judge's decision, finding no error in the dismissal of the notice of motion. The Court reasoned that the applicant had not met the necessary threshold to warrant a referral for pro bono assistance. The principles applied focused on the limited circumstances under which such referrals are typically granted, emphasizing that it is not an automatic right but rather a discretionary measure available in specific situations where the applicant demonstrates a compelling need and the merits of the case warrant such support.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal ordered that the applicant's notice of motion filed on 16 June 2022 be dismissed, with costs awarded to the respondent.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Applicant’s notice of motion filed 16 June 2022 be dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.