Sanjiv v Coleman Greig Lawyers Pty Ltd

1. [1]

   PRICE AJA: By notice of motion filed on 3 March 2026, the applicant, Rekha Sanjiv, seeks an order pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”), for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for legal assistance. The applicant is presently self-represented.

2. [2]

   The applicant relies on two affidavits in support of the motion, the first affirmed on 25 February 2026 (“first affidavit”) and the second affirmed on 4 March 2026 (“second affidavit”). In her second affidavit, the applicant states the following reasons why she requires the referral for pro bono assistance: that the proceedings are complex; that she has no money or limited funds to obtain legal representation; that legal assistance from another source is unobtainable; and that the referral is in the interests of the administration of justice referring to the applicable principles under r 7.36 of the UCPR.

3. [3]

   The respondent, a law firm, Coleman Greig Lawyers, did not appear this morning before me and has not taken an active role in either opposing or consenting to the applicant’s motion.

4. [4]

   The applicant’s notice of intention to appeal filed on 1 December 2025, appears to involve a number of successive proceedings as being the subject of her appeal. This includes two decisions of Meek J, the first was a motion heard on 10 December 2024, where his Honour delivered an ex tempore judgment dismissing the applicant’s summons with costs: Sanjiv v Coleman Greig Lawyers Pty Ltd [2024] NSWSC 1675. The second was a comprehensive judgment delivered on 26 May 2025, where his Honour dismissed the applicant’s summons: Sanjiv v Coleman Greig Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 528. There is further an appeal from the decision of McGrath J delivered on 13 August 2025, where his Honour dismissed the applicant’s application to set aside or vary Meek J’s judgment: Sanjiv v Coleman Greig Lawyers Pty Ltd (No 2) [2025] NSWSC 908. The appeal also involves a decision of Harrison CJ at CL: Sanjiv v Coleman Greig Lawyers Pty Ltd [2025] NSWSC 1422.

5. [5]

   The substantive proceedings to which this application relates arise from various proceedings initiated by the applicant against the respondent, who were her legal advisers during a dispute in the Family Court of Australia. The factual background and history of litigation between the parties have been comprehensively detailed in the judgments of Meek J, McGrath J and Harrison CJ at CL and it is not necessary to be repeated.

6. [6]

   The applicant’s appeal is listed for directions on 13 April 2026, the summons seeking leave to appeal was filed on 26 February 2026.

Relevant principles

1. [7]

   Rule 7.36 of the UCPR provides:

2. [8]

   The principles guiding the exercise of this Court’s discretion to make a referral for pro bono representation under r 7.36 of the UCPR are well known and were helpfully summarised by Brereton JA in Renshaw v New South Wales Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41 at [10]-[12]. More recently, Mitchelmore JA in Allchin v Hunter Water Corporation (No 2) [2024] NSWCA 315 at [12]-[13] referred to what was said by Brereton JA in Renshaw and restated the guiding principles under r 7.36 of the UCPR:

Determination

1. [9]

   Upon the material before me, the applicant’s case does not reveal merit. Nevertheless, an important consideration is that the appeal is still at an early stage. In my view, it is in the interests of justice that the applicant receives professional legal assistance on the merits of her appeal before it proceeds further, especially where that advice may lead to unnecessary or futile litigation being avoided or her claims being properly pleaded if they are considered viable: Renshaw at [12]; Dafaalla v Concord Repatriation General Hospital [2007] NSWSC 602 at [9] (Brereton J). Although the applicant seeks a general referral for legal assistance, I am satisfied that it is in the interests of justice to make an order confined to the provision of advice in relation to the proceedings: r 7.37 of the UCPR.

2. [10]

   An unusual development arose last Friday evening, 6 March 2026, when an order was made by Ierace J under the Vexatious Proceedings Act 2008 (NSW) against the applicant in a different proceeding: Sanjiv v Shah [2026] NSWSC 139. The present motion does not appear to be constrained by the terms of that Vexatious Proceedings Order: see, eg, Potier v Attorney General in and for the State of New South Wales [2014] NSWCA 256.

Orders

1. [11]

   Accordingly, I make the following order:

   1. (1)

      Pursuant to r 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) the applicant is referred to the Court of Appeal Registrar for referral to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel for the provision of advice in relation to the proceedings.