Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Westpac Banking Corporation v Channel 8 Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 912 Hearing dates: 4 July 2014 Decision date: 08 July 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: The reference for pro bono assistance is extended.
Catchwords: LEGAL AID - pro bono assistance - limited reference already made to see if defendant had arguable defence - counsel willing to continue to appear at hearing - special reasons - reference extended Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Cases Cited: Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 717 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Westpac Banking Corporation (Plaintiff)
Channel 8 Holdings Pty Ltd (First Defendant)
Ryan Arthur Martin (Second Defendant)Representation: Counsel:
V Trinh (Plaintiff)
A McQuillen (Defendant)
Solicitors:
Gadens Lawyers (Plaintiff)
No solicitor (Defendant)
File Number(s): 2011/240869
Judgment
On 28 March 2014 I made a reference to the Registrar to enable the Defendant to obtain pro bono assistance, limited to the lawyer advising in relation to the Defendant's existing Defence and whether it had any other defence to the claim. As a result of that reference Mr McQuillen of counsel accepted a reference from the Registrar. Mr McQuillen has now provided advice and drafted an Amended Defence on behalf of the Defendant.
I said at the time I made the reference that if the result of the lawyer's advice the Defendant was permitted to file a further defence identifying any other defence to the claim I would be prepared to entertain a further application at that time in respect of pro bono assistance. Mr McQuillen has indicated that he is prepared to continue to act for the Defendant on the same basis if the pro bono reference was extended.
A similar issue arose in Aboriginal Housing Company Ltd v Kaye-Engel (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 717 by reason of the provisions of r 7.36(2A) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). I concluded in that case that where there had been a limited reference to see if a defendant had a defence to a claim, where it was found that there was an arguable defence and where the defendant was not capable of conducting the proceedings themselves, those matters constituted the special reasons for the purpose of the sub-rule.
I consider that the same position obtains in the present case. Mr McQuillen has identified two arguable defences. Those defences involve some degree of technicality and require legal knowledge. I am satisfied that the Defendant is not in a position to conduct that defence in a way that will advance the interests of justice. Accordingly, the earlier limited reference is extended for the provision of assistance for the preparation and conduct of the hearing of the matter.
**********
- AGLC
- Westpac Banking Corporation v Channel 8 Holdings Pty Ltd (No. 2) [2014] NSWSC 912
- Case
- [2014] NSWSC 912
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues before the court involved the interpretation of the criteria for extending a reference under the Legal Aid (Costs) Act 1987. Specifically, the court needed to determine whether there were special reasons justifying an extension of the reference period to allow for a more thorough exploration of the defendant's potential defences. This included considering the willingness of the defendant's counsel to continue appearing at the hearing and the implications for the case's progression.
The court concluded that there were indeed special reasons to warrant an extension of the reference. Given the complexity of the case and the importance of ensuring that the defendant had a fair opportunity to present their defence, the court found it necessary to allow for additional investigation. The court's reasoning was grounded in the need to balance the interests of justice with the practicalities of legal proceedings, and it ultimately decided that the reference should be extended. This decision was aimed at facilitating a more comprehensive examination of the arguable defences, thereby ensuring a fair trial.
The court ordered that the reference be extended to allow for further examination of the defendant's potential defences, with the understanding that the defendant's counsel would continue to represent Channel 8 Holdings at the hearing. This decision aimed to uphold the principles of fairness and justice in the legal process.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.