Greenfield v John Patrick Miskell trading as J.P. Miskell & Associates

Susana Greenfield commenced proceedings in the Common Law division of this Court by statement of claim signed 7 March 2019.

Mrs Greenfield in her statement of claim asserts that the defendant is a solicitor who had formerly been the Principal solicitor at DJ Fischer and Associates. The relevance of this is that in August 2018, 21 years after the death of her much beloved husband Peter, Mrs Greenfield found a letter from DJ Fisher and Associates dated 19 August 1997 that led her to believe that there may well be the proceeds of a workers compensation claim that was available to her as beneficiary of his estate.

Apparently Peter had died intestate. Mrs Greenfield pursued letters of administration that were granted in February 2019 which lists as property owned by him proceeds of the workers compensation case noted to be of estimated or known value of “79,303.86 (plus interest)”.

The defendant is represented by Gilchrist Connell. That firm have made efforts to investigate the claims in the statement of claim and on 1 August 2019 forwarded a letter to Mrs Greenfield setting out the results of their inquiries for her assistance, and drawing her attention, in a courteous and appropriate manner, to the relevant rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (“UCPR”) and requesting some particulars.

At the Registrar’s encouragement the plaintiff filed a notice of motion to seek pro bono assistance.

In her lengthy affidavit, it is evident from correspondence within it that Mrs Greenfield needs focused assistance from a legal practitioner to explain the complexities of the claim that she seeks to make, and to her assist her with that process. The affidavit indicates that Mrs Greenfield has been unable to obtain help from any community legal centres or law firms.

Mrs Greenfield also stated that she is a nurse, but has suffered a work related shoulder and back injury and so is unable to pay for lawyers and is on part workers compensation and a temporary sickness benefit allowance.

The course proposed by Mrs Greenfield to obtain such assistance is not opposed by the defendant.

UCPR r 7.36 provides as follows:

I am satisfied, having regard to the circumstances described above, including both the fact that Mrs Greenfield cannot afford to pay a lawyer to assist her as well as the complexity of the litigation she seeks to bring, that it is in the interests of justice to make an order referring Mrs Greenfield for pro bono legal assistance in accordance with this rule.

I therefore make the following order: