Home | © 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney for legal practitioners

Pro bono, referral refused

Constantinidis v Kehagiadis [2011] NSWSC 974. Davies J.

89 The Plaintiffs have also applied for a referral to the Registrar for pro bono assistance pursuant to r 7.36 UCPR. In support of that application they have provided information about their assets, liabilities, income and expenditure.

90 That information discloses that the Plaintiffs not only own their own home at 17 Woodford Road, Rockdale but they own another property at 36-48 The Coronado, Old Erowal Bay, which is said to be worth $300,000.

From one or other of those properties they receive rent of $1,200 per fortnight. In those circumstances I do not consider that the Plaintiffs can be considered as indigent to justify a referral for pro bono assistance.

91 I also take into account that the Plaintiffs have been able to secure the assistance of a barrister who drafted the pleading with which this judgment is concerned - that is a matter for consideration under sub-rule (2)(b).

92 I take into account that the causes of action, which I have permitted to be repleaded, do not appear to have high prospects of success.

93 Bearing in mind also what was said in Kelly v Mosman Municipal Council [2010] NSWCA 370 at [18]-[20] and Logan v Baird [2011] NSWCA 19 at [10], when the availability of barristers and solicitors who are prepared to give their time freely to provide pro bono assistance is not great, I do not consider it appropriate to make a reference in the light of these matters.

Previous page: Privilege, legal professional     Next page: Procedural fairness

© 2018 GA Publishing Mosman Sydney | piets/wcms | Account

Common Law Monthly Summaries

12 editions $385 incl GST

Subscribe Sample