Young v Roads and Maritime Services

Case [2016] NSWCA 291


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 291
Hearing dates:17 October 2016
Date of orders: 17 October 2016
Decision date: 17 October 2016
Before: Beazley ACJ
Decision:

1.   Being satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, I refer the applicant, Maureen Mary Young, to the Registrar for referral to a barrister for legal assistance to give advice in relation to the leave granted by this Court in order 1 made 1 September 2016;

 2.   The notice of motion filed 11 October 2016 is otherwise dismissed.
Catchwords: PRACTICE – pro bono referral – whether referral in interests of justice – where applicant has previously received referral – scope of pro bono referral scheme – whether referral appropriate in relation to special leave application
Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Maureen Mary Young (Applicant)
Roads and Maritime Services (Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
In person (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)

  Solicitors:
In person (Applicant)
N/A (Respondent)
File Number(s):2014/339704
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction:
Common Law Division
Citation:
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2015] NSWSC 918; Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 2) [2015] NSWSC 1944; Young v Roads and Maritime Services (No 3) [2016] NSWSC 491
Date of Decision:
10 July 2015; 17 December 2015; 22 April 2016
Before:
Hidden J; Button J
File Number(s):
2014/198018; 2015/249441

Judgment

  1. HER HONOUR: The applicant, Maureen Mary Young, by notice of motion filed 11 October 2016 seeks orders for a referral for pro bono assistance under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (UCPR), Div 9, Pt 7. By order 2 sought in that notice of motion, Ms Young seeks a referral for legal assistance including in respect of the orders the Court made in her favour on 1 September 2016 whereby leave was granted to her to appeal against orders 5 and 6 of the orders made by Button J on 22 April 2016. In my opinion, it is appropriate under the pro bono referral scheme that a referral be made to counsel to advise in relation to those orders.

  2. Ms Young also seeks a referral for pro bono legal assistance from counsel for advice in relation to the balance of the matters in respect of which leave was not granted. The purpose for seeking that pro bono advice is to assist her in relation to an application she wishes to make to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court.

  3. I reject the application for pro bono assistance from senior counsel regarding a special leave application in the High Court in respect of the grounds of appeal dismissed on 1 September 2016. My reasons for doing so are, first, in my opinion, the pro bono scheme for which the UCPR, Div 9, Pt 7 provides is one which is only applicable in respect of proceedings relevantly in the Supreme Court including the Court of Appeal, and, in those circumstances, I do not consider that there is power for me to make an order in respect of pro bono assistance in the High Court. Secondly, having been part of the Court that dealt with Ms Young's amended summons seeking leave to appeal in respect of which the Court made orders and published its reasons on 1 September 2016: Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 258, I am not satisfied that there is sufficient prospects of Ms Young being granted special leave to appeal.

  4. Accordingly, I make the following orders:

1.   Being satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, I refer the applicant, Maureen Mary Young, to the Registrar for referral to a barrister for legal assistance to give advice in relation to the leave granted by this Court in order 1 made 1 September 2016;

2.   The notice of motion filed 11 October 2016 is otherwise dismissed.

**********

Details
AGLC
Young v Roads and Maritime Services [2016] NSWCA 291
Case
[2016] NSWCA 291
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Young v Roads and Maritime Services*, the applicant, Maureen Mary Young, sought legal assistance in relation to leave granted by the Court. The dispute concerned the appropriateness of a pro bono referral under the Court's referral scheme, particularly given the applicant had previously received a referral and the current application related to a special leave application. The matter came before Beazley ACJ.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the interests of justice to refer the applicant for legal assistance to provide advice concerning the leave previously granted. This required the Court to consider the scope and application of the pro bono referral scheme in the context of the applicant's circumstances and the nature of the legal matter.

Beazley ACJ was satisfied that a referral was in the interests of justice. The Court applied the principles governing its pro bono referral scheme, which allows for the provision of legal assistance where it is deemed appropriate and in the interests of justice. The Court's reasoning led to the conclusion that the applicant should be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister for legal assistance to advise on the leave granted.

Consequently, the Court ordered that the applicant be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister for legal assistance to give advice in relation to the leave granted. The notice of motion filed on 11 October 2016 was otherwise dismissed.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Being satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to do so, I refer the applicant, Maureen Mary Young, to the Registrar for referral to a barrister for legal assistance to give advice in relation to the leave granted by this Court in order 1 made 1 September 2016;

2. The notice of motion filed 11 October 2016 is otherwise dismissed.

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.