Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Klewer [2009] NSWSC 368

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Klewer [2009] NSWSC 368

HEARING DATE(S) : 6 May 2009

JUDGMENT DATE : 8 May 2009

JUDGMENT OF : Harrison J

DECISION : 1. The defendant's application for a referral for legal assistance is dismissed. 2. The matter will proceed to hearing in Coffs Harbour commencing at 10.00am on Monday 11 May 2009.

CATCHWORDS : ADJOURNMENT - hearing imminent – defendant's application for referral for pro bono legal assistance – UCPR Part 7 Div 9 – whether grant of application would necessitate adjournment – whether application made in a timely way – previous certificate issued – no explanation of why defendant no longer represented – not in the interests of the administration of justice – no referral ordered – no adjournment granted – hearing dates confirmed.

Supreme Court Act 1970 LEGISLATION CITED : Supreme Court Rules 1970 Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008

CATEGORY : Procedural and other rulings

PARTIES : Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales (Plaintiff) Lucy Pamela Klewer (Defendant)

FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 11569 of 2006

COUNSEL : K G Oliver (Plaintiff)

SOLICITORS : I V Knight, Crown Solicitor (Plaintiff)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION

HARRISON J

8 May 2009

11569 of 2006 Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales v Lucy Pamela Klewer

JUDGMENT 1 The hearing of these proceedings is due to commence on 11 May 2009 in Coffs Harbour with an estimate of two weeks. The matters that remain to be determined during that time are first, the issue of the defendant's health and whether or not she is capable of appearing in court to respond to the proceedings and secondly, the hearing of the plaintiff's claim against her if her health permits. The matter was mentioned before me on 6 May 2009 on the defendant's application for court appointed referral for legal assistance in accordance with UCPR Part 7 Div 9 (formerly Part 66A of the Supreme Court Rules). It appears to be accepted, or if not accepted it is apparent, that the making of an order of the type sought by the defendant would necessitate an adjournment of the proceedings and the loss of the time set aside for their disposal. The giving of a decision in the matter therefore acquired some urgency. It was for that reason that I indicated on 6 May 2009 that the application was refused, that the hearing dates were confirmed and that I would publish my reasons on 8 May 2009. Background 2 The proceedings were commenced in 2006. The plaintiff sought orders under s 84 of the Supreme Court Act 1970, which provided for an application to be made with respect to a person who is said to be a vexatious litigant. The section was then in the following terms: " 84 Vexatious litigant