Singh v Legal Aid Commission

[2015] NSWSC 382

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Singh v Legal Aid Commission [2015] NSWSC 382
Hearing dates:	31 March 2015
Date of orders:	31 March 2015
Decision date:	31 March 2015
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Campbell J
Decision:	I order under r 7.36 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) that Mr Singh be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister on the pro bono panel maintained by the Registrar with experience in employment and administrative law for the provision of initial advice in conference as to the merits of Mr Singh’s application. I direct that the Registrar provide the barrister with a copy of the transcript of today’s hearing and my reasons for making the order.
Catchwords:	PROCEDURE – civil – parties – representation – referral to a barrister or solicitor
Legislation Cited:	Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW); Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Andrew Moti Singh (Plaintiff); Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff in person Solicitors:
File Number(s):	2015/084515

EX TeMPORE Judgment (REVISED)

1. Mr Andrew Singh is an applicant for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel maintained by the Court for legal assistance in relation to litigation he has commenced in this Court.

2. On 20 March 2015 he filed a summons seeking relief under s 69 Supreme Court Act 1970 (NSW) relating to a decision dismissing him from his employment with the New South Wales Public Service. Mr Singh has explained in his affidavit in support that his dismissal occurred as long ago as 20 September 2013 and he appreciates that the summons is filed well out of the time limited by the Rules to bring applications for judicial review. That time, of course, can be extended in the exercise of the Court’s discretion.

3. In October 2013 he engaged a lawyer who was prepared to take the case on a deferred payment basis. Proceedings were commenced in the New South Wales Industrial Commission but they were out of time and the Commission acceded to the defendant’s challenge to the proceedings on jurisdictional grounds. He has explained he has attempted to find pro bono, or no win/no pay legal assistance since that decision without success; he has approached the Law Society, the Bar Association and Salvos Humanitarian Services; and he has spoken to friends who have a legal background to assist him with the summons but he has been unable to obtain any legal assistance whatsoever.

4. Since his dismissal from the government service he has attempted to find other work in private industry. He is a qualified accountant but, understandably, I think having regard to the history of a recent dismissal, it is going to be difficult to find anyone prepared to take him on. He is now surviving on Centrelink payments of $520.40 a fortnight.

5. Applications for judicial review are notoriously complex and technical. It would be very difficult for a self-represented litigant to be sufficiently across the intricacies of administrative law to present a cogent argument to a court. There are obvious difficulties with Mr Singh’s case, which he acknowledges, not the least of which may be the delay in bringing it forward. However, it is not possible for me to make any assessment of the merits of it today.

6. Turning to the provisions of r 7.36 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), I am satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for me to order that Mr Singh be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister on the pro bono panel for legal assistance. In coming to this conclusion, I have taken into account the matters referred to in paras (a), (b) and (c) of subr (2), all of which favour the referral and Mr Singh’s explanation for the delay in commencing proceedings in this Court. He is not a person to whom subr (2)(a) applies. I wish to record, as I said to Mr Singh during the hearing of this application, given the complexity of the case, that the referral ought to be, in the first instance, for the provision of advice in conference by a junior barrister with experience in employment and administrative law.

7. The intent of this referral at this stage is to enable the barrister to gauge the merits or otherwise of Mr Singh’s case in a summary way to equip that barrister to make a decision about whether he or she wishes to continue with the case. That should be a matter for discussion on a confidential basis between Mr Singh and the barrister. If the barrister is prepared to continue, then it may be appropriate for a further application to be made to the Court for referral to a solicitor to enable Mr Singh’s case to be properly prepared for hearing if the barrister and solicitor are prepared to take it on.

8. For these reasons I order under r 7.36 that Mr Singh be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister on the pro bono panel maintained by the Registrar with experience in employment and administrative law for the provision of initial advice in conference as to the merits of Mr Singh’s application.

9. I direct that the Registrar provide the barrister with a copy of the transcript of today’s hearing and my reasons for making the order.

**********

Decision last updated: 08 April 2015