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 1On 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. 2I 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. 3A 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. 4I 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. ********** 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: 08 July 2014