Rouvinetis v Knoll - [2012] NSWCA 125

Court of Appeal

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Rouvinetis v Knoll [2012] NSWCA 125
Hearing dates: 30 April 2012
Decision date: 30 April 2012
Before: Basten JA
Decision:
Pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) I refer Mr Rouvinetis to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance with the appeal.
[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - parties - representation - application for referral to legal practitioner on Pro Bono Panel - appeal raises issues concerning the propriety of the manner of conduct of the trial - whether in the interests of administration of justice that applicant be referred for legal assistance - whether applicant's previous legal representative ceased to act because applicant would not accept his advice - whether applicant would accept advice of legal practitioner to whom he is referred - whether applicant has capacity to obtain other legal assistance - interest in open justice - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36
Legislation Cited: Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101
Uniform Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36; Pt 7
Category: Procedural and other rulings
Parties: Evangelos Rouvinetis - Applicant
David Knoll - First Respondent
Paliguard Pty Ltd - Second Respondent
Representation:
Counsel:

Applicant in person
Solicitors
Applicant self-represented
Holman Webb Lawyers First Respondent
Lee & Lyons Lawyers - Second Respondent

File Number(s): CA 2012/25352; CA 2008/288048
Decision under appeal

Jurisdiction:

9111

Citation:

Rouvinetis v Knoll & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1352

Date of Decision:

2011-11-10 00:00:00

Before:

Fullerton J

File Number(s):

SC 2008/288048

Judgment

BASTEN JA: On 9 April 2008, Mr Rouvinetis was allegedly assaulted and falsely imprisoned in the grounds of Sydney Girls High School in the course of a function held by the Jewish Board of Deputies at that location. He brought a claim against the present respondents and others in negligence, assault and false imprisonment. That claim was heard by Fullerton J in the Common Law Division in September 2011. On 10 November 2011 her Honour gave judgment rejecting the claims and in favour of the various defendants.

The appellant, Mr Rouvinetis, filed a notice of appeal on 23 November 2011. It was purportedly filed as of right although it was not accompanied by an affidavit demonstrating that it satisfied the threshold of a claim worth $100,000 or more as provided in s 101(2)(r) of the Supreme Court Act1970 (NSW). Mr Rouvinetis also filed an application for leave to appeal which may have resulted from the filing by the respondents of a notice of objection to the…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Rouvinetis v Knoll

Details

AGLC: Rouvinetis v Knoll [2012] NSWCA 125
Case: [2012] NSWCA 125
Decision Date: 30 April 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Rouvinetis against a decision of the District Court, with the primary issue being the propriety of the conduct of the trial. Mr Rouvinetis sought a referral to a legal practitioner on the Pro Bono Panel for assistance with the appeal.

The court was required to determine whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to grant Mr Rouvinetis's application for referral. This involved considering whether his previous legal representative had ceased to act due to Mr Rouvinetis's refusal to accept advice, whether he would accept the advice of a referred legal practitioner, and his capacity to obtain other legal assistance, all within the context of the principle of open justice.

Basten JA applied rule 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), which permits the court to refer a party to a legal practitioner for assistance. The court considered the applicant's circumstances, including the nature of the appeal and the potential for him to obtain alternative legal representation.

Pursuant to rule 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Mr Rouvinetis was referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance with the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

Pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) I refer Mr Rouvinetis to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance with the appeal.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.

Medium Neutral Citation:	Rouvinetis v Knoll [2012] NSWCA 125
Hearing dates:	30 April 2012
Decision date:	30 April 2012
Before:	Basten JA
Decision:	Pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) I refer Mr Rouvinetis to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance with the appeal. [Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE - civil - parties - representation - application for referral to legal practitioner on Pro Bono Panel - appeal raises issues concerning the propriety of the manner of conduct of the trial - whether in the interests of administration of justice that applicant be referred for legal assistance - whether applicant's previous legal representative ceased to act because applicant would not accept his advice - whether applicant would accept advice of legal practitioner to whom he is referred - whether applicant has capacity to obtain other legal assistance - interest in open justice - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW), s 101 Uniform Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36; Pt 7
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Evangelos Rouvinetis - Applicant David Knoll - First Respondent Paliguard Pty Ltd - Second Respondent
Representation:	Counsel: Applicant in person Solicitors Applicant self-represented Holman Webb Lawyers First Respondent Lee & Lyons Lawyers - Second Respondent
File Number(s):	CA 2012/25352; CA 2008/288048
Decision under appeal	Jurisdiction: 9111 Citation: Rouvinetis v Knoll & Ors [2011] NSWSC 1352 Date of Decision: 2011-11-10 00:00:00 Before: Fullerton J File Number(s): SC 2008/288048