Jones, Narelle v Transport for NSW

Catchwords: CIVIL PROCEDURE – application for referral for pro bono assistance in personal injuries matter

Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), s 56
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), Part 7.36

Category: Procedural rulings

Parties: Amy Narelle Jones (plaintiff)
Transport for NSW (defendant)

Representation: Solicitors:
Makinson d'Apice Lawyers (defendant)
Other:
Plaintiff (self-represented)

File Number(s): 2023/00338686

Publication restriction: Nil

JUDGMENT – ex tempore

1. Before the Court for determination is a Notice of Motion filed on 30 January 2026 by the plaintiff, Amy Narelle Jones, seeking an order that she be referred to the registrar for referral for pro bono legal assistance. Ms Warren, who appears for the defendant, neither consents to nor opposes the application. The defendant overall is to be commended for its positive attitude in the litigation which it has taken before the Court.

2. Ms Jones, in support of her Notice of Motion, read two affidavits of hers, one dated 17 December 2025 and the second dated 11 February 2026. The application is to be considered under Part 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). The question is whether it is in the interests of the administration of justice to refer the plaintiff litigant to the registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance. Part 7.36(2) lists matters which the Court may take into account. I consider those matters seriatim.

3. The first matter is the means of the litigant. Ms Jones, in her affidavit dated 17 December 2025, states that she has limited income, that income is entirely used for rent and other expenses, and due to her injuries allegedly received in the subject accident, she is unable to return to consistent employment. That has affected her capacity to earn income and to fund private legal representation.

4. Today, Ms Jones has confirmed that the income referred to in the affidavit is a social security payment and that she has no real property or income received through trust distributions, loans and the like and does not own any shares or securities which could be a means of paying for legal representation.

5. The second matter referred to in Part 7.36(2) is the capacity of the litigant to obtain legal assistance outside the scheme. I accept from Ms Jones that she has attempted to obtain assistance from the NSW Bar Association, the NSW Law Society and Legal Aid NSW without success. That is not surprising as very limited assistance is provided by Legal Aid in civil matters due to its funding constraints.

6. The third matter which may be taken into account by the Court is the nature and complexity of the proceedings. The background to the matter is that Ms Jones pleads that on 27 October 2020 when she was wheeling her bicycle through a gate at Central Railways Station that the gate shut suddenly and that she was injured. Particulars which have been served as recently as 16 September 2025 assert very significant injuries and disabilities as a result of the alleged accident.

7. In my view, the matter is not a straightforward one and may turn on whether the gate was idiosyncratic or defective or, if it was not, whether there were other circumstances that may have pointed to some alternative explanation for its operation.

8. The further matter that the Court may take into account is “any other matter that the court considers appropriate”. The Court has been impressed by the diligence of Ms Jones in attempting to pursue her matter and she has been cooperative with court directions in the matter and appears to be approaching the matter in an intelligent and constructive way.

9. One issue that Ms Jones has raised is the difficulty she has had in obtaining relevant documents from her prior solicitors. The defendant's solicitors have taken the view, I am told and I have no reason to doubt, that they should not provide documents served on them because of a solicitor's lien claimed by the former solicitors over the plaintiff’s file.

10. The Court must take into account the interest which the Court and the public has in matters being advanced in a prompt fashion. That, in my view, is consistent with the overriding purpose referred to in s 56 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). I propose to direct that the solicitors for the defendant provide to the plaintiff within seven days copies of documents served by them or served on them in the proceedings. In my view, not to do that would further delay the proper preparation of the matter and any legal advice which Ms Jones may receive.

11. It may be argued that the Court directing this would undermine the value of the solicitor's lien. What I do not know is whether there are other documents held which have not been served by the former solicitors for the plaintiff which were proposed to be put in any court book for the hearing. In my view, any direction should not encompass those documents but purely those pleadings, particulars, expert reports, statements and other documents which have been served so far. To do otherwise, would, as I indicate, delay the proper conduct of the proceedings. The former solicitors for the plaintiff will have available to them a claim over the fruits of the action.

12. Taking into account the matters I have indicated and the fact, which I accept, that Ms Jones has not been referred for pro bono assistance in the three years before now (that being confirmed by her and it not being suggested on the court file where the matter was commenced under three years ago), and exercising the discretion which I have, in my view, it is in the interests of the administration of justice for Ms Jones to be referred for pro bono legal assistance.

13. In deciding that, I take into account the fact that there is a hearing listed for 24 March 2026. It will therefore be important for Ms Jones to cooperate with any legal practitioners whom the registrar is able to identify to have an early consideration of the status of her matter so that any vacation of the hearing date is avoided. I also take into account the constructive attitude of the defendant to the application in the light of the existing hearing date.

14. Accordingly, the further orders I make in relation to the notice of motion filed on 30 January 2026 are:

15. Pursuant to Part 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), the plaintiff is referred to the registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance as to advice and representation.

16. The costs of the notice of motion are to be costs in the cause.

Note the matter is currently listed for final hearing on 24 March 2026.

3. The readiness hearing on 18 February 2026 is vacated.
4. The matter is listed for a further readiness hearing on 2 March 2026 before the list judge at 9.30am.

[His Honour then dealt with other procedural issues].

**********