Iqbal v Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

• Amendment notes

Medium Neutral Citation:

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

Hearing dates:

6 June 2022

Date of orders:

7 June 2022

Decision date:

07 June 2022

Before:

Meagher JA

Decision:

Dismiss the appellant’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 grounds of appeal do not describe or identify any relevant question of law necessary to engage the right of appeal under Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), s 353 – application refused

Legislation Cited:

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36

Workplace Injury Management and Workers Compensation Act 1998 (NSW), ss 352(5), 353

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

Cases Cited:

Renshaw v NSW Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41

Category:

Procedural rulings

Parties:

Mohammed Javed Iqbal (Appellant)
Hotel Operations Solutions Pty Ltd (Respondent)

Representation:

Counsel:

C Roberts (Respondent)

Solicitors:

(Appellant self-represented)
Hicksons Lawyers (Respondent)

File Number(s):

2021/00353147

Publication restriction:

Nil

 Decision under appeal 

Court or tribunal:

Personal Injury Commission

Citation:

[2021] NSWPICPD 40

Date of Decision:

15 November 2021

Before:

M Snell, Deputy President

Judgment

1. MEAGHER JA: By his notice of motion filed on 31 May 2022, the applicant, Mohammed Iqbal, seeks an order for pro bono “legal assistance” under Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR) r 7.36.

2. In Renshaw v NSW Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41 at [10]-[12], Brereton JA observed in relation to the requirement in r 7.36(1) that the court be satisfied that referral is in the “interests of the administration of justice”:

“…Mere satisfaction that a litigant cannot otherwise obtain legal assistance is an insufficient reason. As subrule (2) contemplates, it is relevant to consider the person’s means, needs and capacity, the nature of the proceedings, and the likely availability and utility of legal assistance.

Moreover, pro bono assistance is a valuable and scarce resource, dependent on the goodwill of members of the legal profession, which should not be lightly dissipated. The Court has a responsibility to husband this resource carefully. The obligations undertaken by a lawyer who accepts a referral import a concomitant obligation on the Court to exercise discretion in the making of referrals. As I said in Dafaalla v Concord Repatriation General Hospital:

‘The success of the scheme is dependent upon the support of the profession, and the obligations which are undertaken by a lawyer on the pro-bono panel import a concomitant obligation on the Court to exercise discretion in the grant of referral certificates. While, by r 66A.1(4), a referral does not indicate that the Court has formed an opinion on the merits of a litigant’s case, the Court should ordinarily be reluctant to grant certificates in respect of matters that appear to be without merit. That is not to say that a referral should never be made in a case apparently lacking merit: for example, it may…