Liang v University of Technology Sydney (No 2)

[2019] NSWSC 212

Supreme Court

New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation:	Liang v University of Technology Sydney (No 2) [2019] NSWSC 212
Hearing dates:	5 March 2019
Date of orders:	05 March 2019
Decision date:	05 March 2019
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Schmidt J
Decision:	Ms Liang be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Court's Pro Bono Panel for the legal assistance which is described at [7].
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for referral to Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance – Application granted for referral on limited basis
Legislation Cited:	Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
Cases Cited:	Phu v New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2011) NSWCA 119
Category:	Procedural and other rulings
Parties:	Guohua Liang (Plaintiff) University of Technology Sydney (First Defendant) John Colville (Second Defendant) Max Hendriks (Third Defendant)
Representation:	Counsel: Plaintiff in person A Flecknoe-Brown (First, Second and Third Defendants)   Solicitors: Barry Nilsson Lawyers (First, Second and Third Defendants)
File Number(s):	2018/329329
Publication restriction:	Nil

EX TEMPORE Judgment

1. HER HONOUR: This is an application brought by Ms Liang by way of notice of motion asking the Court to exercise its discretion to refer her for pro bono legal assistance under Pt 7 Div 9 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). Such a referral can be made if the Court is satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice for the litigant to be referred to a barrister or solicitor on its Pro Bono Panel.

2. Referral does not indicate any opinion on the part of the Court as to the merits of the proceedings Ms Liang has initiated, in which she raises very serious allegations, as explained in her supporting affidavit of 18 February 2018, of corruption and misconduct on the part of University staff which she has referred to the Independent Commission Against Corruption and which has been the subject of proceedings which she unsuccessfully pursued before NCAT.

3. At present of particular concern to her is what she considers to be a failure by persons she served with subpoenas to produce documents to the Court, to comply with those subpoenas.

4. From what has fallen from the University, it appears that documents have been produced in answer to one of the subpoenas and that there will be an application to have the other set aside as impermissibly seeking discovery rather than production of documents, contrary to the requirements of the Court's Rules.

5. A consideration on an application such as this is what the interests of justice requires. It has been held in Phu v New South Wales Department of Education and Training (2011) NSWCA 119 that this criterion means that the Court should ordinarily not order a referral, where it considers a claim to be without merit. It has not been suggested by the University that this is such a case, but given some of the extravagant ways in which Ms Liang has expressed her concerns in some of her supporting documents, that issue does potentially appear to arise.

6. It has also been observed that in some cases, appropriate early legal advice and a referral for that purpose is, however, useful in order to avoid unnecessary or futile litigation, or the pursuit of unnecessary or futile applications in litigation which otherwise has a proper foundation.

7. In all of the circumstances, I am not inclined to refer Ms Liang for pro bono advice on the broad basis which she pressed. In the first instance, I consider that she should be referred for pro bono assistance in order that she can obtain preliminary advice in relation to the proceedings she has initiated and her proposed pursuit of what she complains is a failure to comply with subpoenas which have been served and the foreshadowed application to have the subpoenas set aside, as failing to comply with the requirements of the Court's Rules.

8. I limit the referral in that way because Ms Liang, unrepresented as she is, understandably will be in the position in which many unrepresented litigants find themselves of having to comply with the Court's Rules which, in relation to matters such as the issuing of subpoenas and the production of documents, can be technical and complicated. So it would be in her interests to receive advice about that, as well as preliminary advice about the case which generally she seeks to advance.

Order

9. For those reasons, I order that Ms Liang be referred to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Court's Pro Bono Panel for the legal assistance which I earlier described at [7].

**********