Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 176

Court of Appeal Supreme Court New South Wales Medium Neutral Citation: Margan v Manias [2015] NSWCA 176 Hearing dates: 27 April 2015 Date of orders: 27 April 2015 Decision date: 27 April 2015 Before: JC CAMPBELL AJA Decision: 1. Applicant to contact the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance to help him prepare his case in the Court of Appeal and to represent him in Court Legislation Cited: Anti-Discrimination Act 1977 (NSW) Uniform Civil Procedure Rules, r 7.36 Cases Cited: Margan v Manias [2014] NSWSC 889 Margan v Manias [2015] NSWSC 307 Category: Procedural and other rulings Parties: Simon Margan (Applicant) Danny Manias (Respondent) Representation: Counsel: G Curtin SC / S Mack (Applicant) No appearance (Respondent)

Solicitors: File Number(s): 2015/103516 Decision under appeal Citation: [2014] NSWSC 889

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Judgment 1. JC CAMPBELL AJA: These proceedings arise from two incidents that took place in 2010. In the first of them the respondent shouted various comments as the applicant was putting up some posters in Oxford Street advocating gay marriage. In the second incident, which occurred about a week later, the respondent assaulted the applicant. 2. On 7 August 2013 the Administrative Decisions Tribunal found that the respondent was guilty of verbal vilification in the first incident but not guilty of physical vilification concerning the second incident. On 9 May 2014 the Civil and Administrative Decisions Tribunal declined to alter that decision of the Administrative Decisions Tribunal. On 2 July 2014 Davies J made a grant of pro bono assistance for a Supreme Court Appeal against the decision of 9 May: Margan v Manias [2014] NSWSC 889. 3. That appeal was determined by Hall J on 26 March 2015: Margan v Manias [2015] NSWSC 307. His Honour rejected the appeal. A notice of appeal against the decision of Hall J has now been filed with the Court of Appeal. 4. The matter that is before me today is a notice of motion that the applicant filed in the Court of Appeal seeking pro bono assistance. Pro bono assistance can be ordered pursuant to UCPR 7.36. That requires the Court to be satisfied that it is in the interests of the administration of justice to make such an order. 5. Thus, such an order will not be made as of right, or by consent without the Court giving its own consideration to the question. 6. The Court is permitted, under the terms of UCPR 7.36 to take into account the means of the litigant, the capacity of the litigant to obtain legal assistance outside the scheme, the nature and complexity of the proceedings and any other matter that the Court considers appropriate. Though the applicant is admitted as a lawyer, he has some physical and psychological impairments which make it impractical for him to represent himself. He lives on a disability support pension and so has limited means. 7. The questions involved concern the interpretation of the anti-vilification provisions of the Anti-discrimination Act 1977. Though the particular question arises concerning the homosexual anti-vilification provisions, the interpretation of those provisions will be of relevance concerning the interpretation of other anti-vilification provisions in the Anti-discrimination Act as well. The questions involved are matters of some importance. 8. In those circumstances it is appropriate to make the order that is sought. I refer the applicant to the Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the pro bono panel for legal assistance to help him prepare his case in the Court of Appeal and to represent him in Court. I note that Mr Curtin of Senior Counsel and Mr Mack have previously represented the applicant, and have indicated a preparedness to represent him again if an order were to be made. 9. [Discussion between his Honour and counsel] 10. I note that when the matter is next before the Registrar the applicant proposes to raise the question of whether preparation of an appeal book should be dispensed with, in light of all relevant documentation having been collated for the purpose of the hearing before the primary Judge.