Norman v Wall (No. 6)

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.