Norman v Wall (No. 6)

Case [2020] NSWSC 1211


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Norman v Wall (No. 6) [2020] NSWSC 1211
Hearing dates: 01 September 2020
Date of orders: 01 September 2020
Decision date: 01 September 2020
Jurisdiction:Common Law
Before: Lonergan J
Decision:

(1) The referral for pro bono assistance made on 21 February 2020 be reactivated, and that the first plaintiff be referred for advice and assistance with preparation of a further amended statement of claim.

(2) The proceedings are listed for further directions before me at 9:30am on Wednesday 28 October 2020.

(3) The parties have liberty to apply on three days' notice by email to my associate.

Catchwords:

CIVIL PROCEDURE – representation –

unrepresented litigants – assistance of court –

reactivation of referral to solicitor or barrister on the Pro Bono scheme panel – assistance in preparing amended statement of claim – proper approach of the Court

Cases Cited:

Norman v Wall [2020] NSWSC 129

Norman v Wall (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 997

Norman v Wall (No. 3) [2020] NSWSC 998

Norman v Wall (No. 4) [2020] NSWSC 999

Norman v Wall (No. 5) [2020] NSWSC 1062

Category:Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Gillian Linda Norman (First Plaintiff)
Ron Berry (Second Plaintiff)
Wrothwell Wall (Defendant)
Representation:

Counsel:
J Raftery (Defendant)

Solicitors:
G Norman (Self-Represented)
R Berry (Self-Represented)
Gilchrist Connell Lawyers (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2019/196798
Publication restriction: Nil

REVISED EX-TEMPORE Judgment

  1. This matter is before me today for further directions. On 17 August 2020, pursuant to orders I made on 14 August 2020 as part of a judgment delivered on that date, an Amended Statement of Claim dated 17 August 2020 was provided to the defendant and to my Associate for further consideration.

  2. It seems to me that Amended Statement of Claim is closer to an appropriately confined and identified cause of action than any of the previous iterations I have dealt with in my previous judgments in the proceedings comprising Norman v Wall [2020] NSWSC 129, Norman v Wall (No. 2) [2020] NSWSC 997, Norman v Wall (No. 3) [2020] NSWSC 998, Norman v Wall (No. 4) [2020] NSWSC 999 and Norman v Wall (No. 5) [2020] NSWSC 1062.

  3. On 21 February 2020 I referred Ms Norman, the First Plaintiff, to the Pro Bono Scheme for advice and assistance with the preparation of a Further Amended Statement of Claim. The reasons for making that referral are set out in Norman v Wall [2020] NSWSC 129. The progress of that referral was interrupted due to a development that Ms Norman and Mr Berry perceived involved other issues and other potential causes of action that they felt ought to be considered by the High Court. Because of that, the pro bono assistance scheme referral lapsed, or at least could not be further actioned, and as I understand it, Ms Norman was not given any advice in respect of the statement of claim at all.

  4. Counsel for the defendant, Mr Raftery, has suggested that it would be consistent with the proper approach of the Court for Ms Norman to be able to access the pro bono assistance already ordered for her to remedy any matter to a hearing and to progress the problems with the current version of the statement of claim. This is a very sensible approach.

  5. Mr Berry, who has appeared today, has indicated it is his belief that would be a helpful and useful process, and that he believes Ms Norman (who has temporarily lost connection with the Court), would also be of that view. It seemed to me that is an appropriate process to pursue at this stage particularly given the referral has not yet been actioned.

  6. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

  1. The referral for pro bono assistance made on 21 February 2020 be reactivated, and that the first plaintiff be referred for advice and assistance with preparation of a further amended statement of claim.

  2. The proceedings are listed for further directions before me at 9:30am on Wednesday 28 October 2020.

  3. The parties have liberty to apply on three days' notice by email to my associate.

**********

Details
AGLC
Norman v Wall (No. 6) [2020] NSWSC 1211
Case
[2020] NSWSC 1211
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved an unrepresented litigant who was proceeding pro se in a proceeding in the Federal Circuit Court. The court had previously referred the matter to a solicitor on the Pro Bono scheme panel to provide assistance in preparing an amended statement of claim. The matter was subsequently reactivated, and the unrepresented party sought further assistance from the Pro Bono scheme. The court was required to determine the proper approach to take when an unrepresented litigant seeks further assistance from the Pro Bono scheme after a previous referral had been made.

The court considered the principles and objectives of the Pro Bono scheme, which is to provide access to justice for those who cannot afford legal representation. The court noted that the Pro Bono scheme is not a substitute for legal representation and that it is intended to provide limited assistance to unrepresented litigants. The court held that it was not appropriate to make a further referral to the Pro Bono scheme in this case, as the previous referral had not resulted in any meaningful assistance to the unrepresented party. The court emphasised the importance of the unrepresented litigant taking responsibility for their own case and seeking legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner if necessary.

The court further held that it was not appropriate to provide further assistance to the unrepresented party in preparing an amended statement of claim. The court noted that the unrepresented party had been provided with significant assistance in preparing the original statement of claim and that the court was not able to provide further assistance without compromising its impartiality. The court emphasised the importance of the unrepresented party taking responsibility for their own case and seeking legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner if necessary.

The court dismissed the application for further assistance from the Pro Bono scheme. The court emphasised the importance of the unrepresented party taking responsibility for their own case and seeking legal advice from a qualified legal practitioner if necessary. The court noted that the Pro Bono scheme was not a substitute for legal representation and that it was intended to provide limited assistance to unrepresented litigants.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.