Marino (a pseudonym) v Bello (a pseudonym) (No 2)

[2022] NSWCA 143

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Marino (a pseudonym) v Bello (a pseudonym) (No 2) [2022] NSWCA 143
Hearing dates:	On the papers
Date of orders:	08 August 2022
Decision date:	08 August 2022
Before:	Brereton JA
Decision:	Pursuant to UCPR 7.36, refer the appellant to the Registrar for referral to a barrister on the pro bono panel for legal assistance, namely representation generally in the conduct of the proceedings.
Catchwords:	CIVIL PROCEDURE – Representation – Unrepresented litigant – Pro bono referral – Subsequent referral – Special reasons – Where Court has found case sufficiently arguable to justify grant of leave to appeal – Where hearing of appeal unlikely to involve any contradictor – Referral made
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36
Category:	Procedural rulings
Parties:	A Marino (a pseudonym (applicant) B Bello (a pseudonym (first respondent) C Bello (a pseudonym (second respond)
Representation:	Counsel: A Marino (a pseudonym), in person (applicant)
File Number(s):	2021/175377
Decision under appeal	Court or tribunal: District Court of New south Wales Jurisdiction: Civil Citation: [2021] NSWDC 52 Date of Decision: 26 February 2021; 11 March 2021 Before: Gibson DCJ File Number(s): 2020/156610

Judgment

1. On 16 May 2022, the Court granted leave to the applicant to appeal from a judgment of the District Court, as regards claims against the first and second respondents, on proposed grounds 1 and 5 (subject to certain limitations) in the draft notice of appeal. The appeal is set down for hearing on 18 August 2022. By Notice of Motion filed on 29 July 2022, the appellant seeks a referral for pro bono assistance.

2. The appellant is presently self-represented and has no solicitor nor counsel acting, although it appears that he was some time a member of the legal profession. He deposes that he is presently a part-time student, aspiring to re-join the legal profession, and in receipt of job-keeper payments.

3. The Court’s reasons for granting leave to appeal disclose a sufficiently arguable case that a referral would not be declined on that basis. The case gives rise to a question of principle upon which the court will be assisted by consideration and exposition of the authorities by competent counsel, particularly in circumstances where it appears unlikely that the respondents will be represented.

4. The appellant discloses that he received a referral for pro bono assistance in 2021 in an unrelated matter, and also in the District Court in this matter, though it was apparently not accepted by any lawyer. UCPR r 7.36(2A) provides that the Court may not refer a litigant for assistance if the litigant has obtained assistance under a previous referral at any time during the immediately preceding period of three years, unless the court is satisfied that there are special reasons that justify a further referral. In my view, the circumstance that the court has found the appellant’s case sufficiently arguable to warrant a grant of leave to appeal, and that it appears unlikely that there will be any contradictor, provide special reasons.

5. Being satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to do so, I refer the appellant to the Registrar for referral to a barrister on the pro bono panel for legal assistance, namely representation generally in the conduct of the proceedings.

**********