Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Rose v Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier) and ors [2013] NSWSC 1363 Hearing dates: 18 September 2013 Decision date: 18 September 2013 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Davies J Decision: 1. I refer the Plaintiffs to the Registrar pursuant to r 7.36 UCPR for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance. 2. I grant leave to each of the 19th, 20th, 30th, 32nd and 33rd Defendants to file and serve a Notice of Motion to strike out the Statement of Claim or dismiss the proceedings. 3. Any such Notice of Motion, together with supporting affidavits, is to be filed and served by 5.00 pm 19 September 2013 and is to be returnable before the Registrar on 23 September 2013 and in that regard I abridge time for service. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - unrepresented plaintiffs - application for pro bono assistance - claims against defendants not discernible from pleading - plaintiffs unable to obtain legal representation - hardship - referral in interests of justice for all parties Legislation Cited: Uniform Civil Procedure Rules Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Janice Rose (First Plaintiff) Kathleen Guthrie (Second Plaintiff) Premier of Queensland Department, (Hon. Campbell Newman, Premier (First Defendant) and others Representation: Counsel: In person (Plaintiffs) N Gouliaditis (2nd and 36th Defendants) C Wallace (19th Defendant) R Pillay (20th Defendant) E Gair (30th Defendant) J Murphy (32nd Defendant) A Langshaw (33rd Defendant) Solicitors: Australian Government Solicitor (2nd and 36th Defendants) Dibbs Barker (19th & 30th Defendants) Australian Business Lawyers (32nd Defendant) Maddocks (33rd Defendant) File Number(s): 2013/231445 Judgment 1These proceedings commenced on 30 July 2013 by filing a Statement of Claim. There is some doubt that this Statement of Claim was served on all parties. An Amended Statement of Claim was filed on 20 August 2013. That document names 40 different Defendants. It is virtually impossible to work out from the Amended Statement of Claim what the claims are against each of the Defendants. The Amended Statement of Claim in no sense complies with the rules of court for pleading. Even an examination of the documents annexed to it does not make clear what the complaint is against each and every one of the Defendants. 2The Plaintiffs have applied by Notice of Motion filed 4 September for pro bono assistance in the matter. The only other parties who appeared this morning were the 2nd, 19th, 20th, 30th, 32nd, 33rd and 36th Defendants. 3I note that the 19th Defendant (St Andrew's Insurance) claims not to have been properly served with the originating process and has not, therefore, filed an Appearance. This problem with service is likely to be more widespread because the Plaintiffs did not appear to understand that it was necessary to serve companies at their registered offices. The only parties who have filed appearances are Christadelphian Homes Ltd (24th Defendant) and Chandler Macleod Group Ltd (34th Defendant). The Australian Federal Police (2nd Defendant) and Centrelink Gosford (36th Defendant) must be taken to have appeared since a Notice of Motion has been filed on their behalf to dismiss the proceedings. 4None of the Defendants who have appeared this morning opposes the Plaintiffs being referred for pro bono assistance. 5As mentioned, the 2nd and 36th Defendants (represented by the same solicitor) have, by a Motion filed 16 September 2013, sought to have the proceedings against them dismissed relying on rr 6.29, 13.4 and 14.28 UCPR. That Motion is returnable on 23 September 2013 before the Registrar and is likely to be referred on that day to the Duty Judge for hearing. 6The 33rd Defendant asked me to exercise the powers in r 4.10 sub-r (4) UCPR to disallow the Amended Statement of Claim on the basis that it does not comply with the requirements of the rules and should not have been accepted for filing. 7Given that the Plaintiffs are self represented, that I intend to refer them for pro bono assistance and that the 2nd and 36th Defendants have a motion to dismiss the proceedings as against them next week I do not consider it appropriate to exercise the powers under r 4.10. Rather, I will give leave to each of the Defendants present to file and serve a notice of motion returnable before the Registrar on 23 September for the striking out and/or dismissal of the proceedings. Such notice of motion and any supporting material is to be served by 5pm 19 September 2013. In that regard I abridge time for service to 23 September. 8I have endeavoured this morning to obtain from the Plaintiffs the basis of the claims they make against each of the Defendants who have appeared this morning. I did that for two reasons. First, I wanted to have some understanding of it to see if I was justified in referring the Plaintiffs for pro bono assistance. Secondly, I wanted those Defendants present to have a better understanding of the claim that is apparently made against them in the proceedings that have been commenced. The transcript of today will be available to those parties. 9The Plaintiffs say that they have sought legal assistance from a number of places including private solicitors, the Redfern Legal Centre and the Central Coast Community Legal Centre. In some cases the Plaintiffs say these lawyers commenced to assist them in the case but have thereafter declined to continue to assist them in the matter. 10It would have to be said that some of the claims that have been outlined this morning on the face of them would seem not to justify bringing proceedings against particular Defendants. Nevertheless, it seems to me to be in everybody's interests for these Plaintiffs to receive pro bono assistance if that is available. That is one of the considerations under r 7.36. 11There is some scant evidence about the financial position of the Plaintiffs but I am satisfied that it is such as to justify the referral for pro bono assistance. In that regard I particularly bear in mind the heavy demands that are made on the schemes operated by the Law Society and the Bar Association. 12The First Plaintiff is in receipt of average earnings of $360 a week and the Second Plaintiff is in receipt of Centrelink benefits of $597 a fortnight. They are paying $355 per week rent and in addition they have mortgage commitments under a mortgage over a farm property that one or both of them own. There are undoubtedly other expenses, some of which have been identified in the material before me. I consider the evidence is such as to justify a finding that the means of the Plaintiffs justify a referral for pro bono assistance. 13I have noted already that applications have been made by them to a number of private lawyers and legal aid centres without ultimate success. As the proceedings are currently constituted there is certainly a complexity about them, although that complexity at the present time appears to be gaining a proper understanding of what the claims are against each of the Defendants. It seems to me to be in the interests of justice for all parties if the Plaintiffs can be assisted in understanding if they have the claims they wish to bring and in articulating any maintainable claims in a properly pleaded Statement of Claim. 14In all the circumstances I consider that it is appropriate to make an order under r 7.36. Accordingly I refer the Plaintiffs to the Registrar pursuant to that rule for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance. 15I advised the Plaintiffs that it may take some time for pro bono assistance to be provided if a lawyer is prepared to take their case. I advised them that, in the meantime, they ought to read carefully Part 14 of the Rules with a view to preparing an amended for of the Statement of Claim which complies with the rules. I suggested to them that it may assist their position with regard to the Defendants' applications next week if such an amended document was provided to the Defendants prior to 23 September. The Plaintiffs have said they will endeavour to do that. 16I make the following orders: (1)I refer the Plaintiffs to the Registrar pursuant to r 7.36 UCPR for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance. (2)I grant leave to each of the 19th, 20th, 30th, 32nd and 33rd Defendants to file and serve a Notice of Motion to strike out the Statement of Claim or dismiss the proceedings. (3)Any such Notice of Motion, together with supporting affidavits, is to be filed and served by 5.00 pm 19 September 2013 and is to be returnable before the Registrar on 23 September 2013 and in that regard I abridge time for service. ********** DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated. Decision last updated: 19 September 2013