Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited
[2019] NSWCA 282
•25 November 2019
Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Sayed v National Australia Bank Limited [2019] NSWCA 282 Hearing dates: 25 November 2019 Date of orders: 25 November 2019 Decision date: 25 November 2019 Before: Macfarlan JA Decision: Order that the applicant be referred to the registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance.
Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – representation – unrepresented litigant – referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel under r 7.36 of UCPR – no issue of principle Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), r 7.36 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Bill Sayed (Applicant)
National Australia Bank Limited (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
Solicitors:
Bill Sayed (Applicant in person)
Dentons Australia Pty Ltd (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2019/204489; 2019/253854 Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Common Law
- Citation:
- [2019] NSWSC 653 (2019/204489);
[2015] NSWSC 420 (2019/253854)- Date of Decision:
- 26 July 2019 (2019/204489);
16 April 2015 (2019/253854)- Before:
- McCallum J (2019/204489);Harrison AsJ (2019/253854)
- File Number(s):
- 2010/135614
Judgment
-
Mr Bill Sayed appeals, or seeks leave to appeal, against judgments of Harrison AsJ and McCallum J of 16 April 2015 and 25 June 2019 respectively. The circumstances of the proceedings below are described in a judgment dated 11 September 2019 of Emmett AJA dismissing an application by Mr Sayed for a stay of their Honours’ orders ([2019] NSWCA 238).
-
On 4 November 2019 Mr Sayed filed an amended notice of motion in this Court seeking a number of orders, including an order under r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) referring him to the registrar for referral to a barrister or a solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance. The only question before me today is whether that order should be made.
-
The rule specifies that before an order is made the court must be satisfied that it is “in the interests of the administration of justice” for the order to be made. The rule identifies certain matters which the court may take into account in exercising its discretion. These are the means of the litigant, the capacity of the litigant to obtain legal assistance outside the Pro Bono Panel scheme, the nature and complexity of the proceedings and any other matter that the court considers appropriate (r 7.36 of the UCPR).
-
I have concluded that it is in the interests of justice to make the order that Mr Sayed seeks. Although Emmett AJA, in his judgment of 11 September 2019, said that he was not persuaded at that stage that Mr Sayed’s appeal proceedings have any merit, his Honour did not rule out the possibility that the position might change before they were concluded.
-
The proceedings do have a factual complexity and it is not possible for me to conclude that they will not ultimately succeed. Mr Sayed was unrepresented at first instance and has been unable to obtain legal assistance in relation to his appeal proceedings. I consider that the interests of justice would be advanced by Mr Sayed having access to legal advice and assistance. If his proceedings are not capable of withstanding close analysis, it is obviously advisable that he be made aware of that at the earliest possible time, so that futile litigation can be avoided. If on the other hand Mr Sayed’s legal adviser can identify a way in which his cases can be put which gives them a real prospect of success, then the interests of justice will have been advanced.
-
For these reasons, I order pursuant to r 7.36 of the UCPR that Mr Sayed be referred to the registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance.
**********
Decision last updated: 25 November 2019
0
2
1