Youakim v Legal Aid NSW

[2016] NSWSC 882

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Youakim v Legal Aid NSW [2016] NSWSC 882
Hearing dates:	3 June 2016
Date of orders:	03 June 2016
Decision date:	03 June 2016
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Campbell J
Decision:	(1) See [6] – [7] .
Catchwords:	JUDICIAL REVIEW–interim relief sought where summons filed without notice – where no exceptional circumstances shown
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Emad Youakim (Plaintiff) Legal Aid New South Wales (Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Emad Youakim (self-represented)       Solicitors: Emad Youakim (self-represented)
File Number(s):	2016/170941

ex tempore Judgment –Revised

1. The plaintiff, Mr Youakim, is a practicing solicitor. He formerly had the benefit of an agreement for the provision of services to legally assisted persons with Legal Aid New South Wales. That agreement was made on 20 January 2010. From what the practitioner has told me the agreement expired after five years, in January 2015, but he continued to act as a panel member in the same manner as previously, I assume on an informal basis.

2. Earlier this year he was asked or required to apply for reappointment to the panel which he duly did. By letter dated 13 May 2016 the officer of Legal Aid having authority in the matter informed him that his application for reappointment to the panel was refused. This is the decision Mr Youakim seeks to impugn. But the refusal may have in fact occurred by an earlier letter of 19 April 2016 by which he was informed that a selection committee had declined his application.

3. By the letter of 19 April 2016 he was also given the opportunity to make further submissions on or before 11 May 2016 which he did. The letter of 13 May is perhaps not the decision that should be impugned from Mr Youakim's point of view but rather is a further exemplification of the committee's reasons in response to his further submissions.

4. He has filed a summons today seeking a stay of the decision made by Legal Aid. He described it as a decision to remove him from the panel. In terms it seems to have been a decision to refuse his application for re-appointment.

5. He is seeking to proceed ex-parte not even having served the summons. The summons does not seek any final relief such as an order in the nature of certiorari or the like.

6. I am not persuaded that there is sufficient urgency in Mr Youakim's case to justify proceeding ex-parte with the provision of any interim relief at this stage.

7. I am concerned that the summons does not seek any final relief that may justify a stay or other interim order preserving the status quo. It is not even clear that the status quo is that he is on the panel, rather than off it. But more importantly I am not satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances in the case which justifies the Court proceeding ex parte without any notice of that intention having been given to Legal Aid and I refuse the application.

**********

Decision last updated: 24 June 2016