Navigating the court system without legal representation can be daunting. It is especially challenging when finances or circumstances limit your access to professional help. In New South Wales, the courts have a specific mechanism to support self-represented litigants. This mechanism helps those who genuinely need legal assistance. It is Rule 7.36 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005. It enables the referral to a barrister or solicitor. This happens when the Court is satisfied. Referring a litigant to the Registrar for legal assistance must be in the interests of the administration of justice. The litigant can then be referred to a barrister or solicitor on the Pro Bono Panel.
Pro Bono Schemes
Pro bono legal help is work performed by lawyers for little or no fee. It plays a vital role in supporting both the courts and the wider community. Beyond private practitioners who volunteer their time, several formal assistance schemes are in operation in New South Wales. These include the Bar Association’s Legal Assistance Scheme, the Law Society’s Pro Bono Scheme, and services available through LawAccess NSW. Additionally, the Supreme Court has its own internal mechanisms. It appoints a lawyer to help a litigant under the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules.
Rule 7.36(2) provides that the Court take into account the means of the litigant. Slattery J also considered the capacity to obtain legal assistance outside the Scheme. Additionally, the nature and complexity of the proceedings, as well as any other matters deemed appropriate, are factors. Rule 7.36(2)(a) specifies that the Court shall not refer a litigant for assistance. This applies if the litigant received help under an earlier referral during the last three years. Nonetheless, if there are special reasons, a further referral can be justified.
If a referral is granted, the matter goes to the Registrar. The Registrar then attempts to connect the litigant with a barrister or solicitor from the Pro Bono Panel. Understanding how this rule operates is crucial. Knowing what the Court looks for when considering a demand is essential. It can make a significant difference if you’re seeking support with your case. This post explains how the referral system works, what you can expect, and the practical steps to follow.
The Matter
The Estate of Gaber Ekladious Awad; The Estate of Ognee Abd Elkodious Mikheil [2025] NSWSC 1346. Slattery J decided not to refer the two self-represented siblings for pro bono legal assistance. His honour opted not to involve the Bar Association or Law Society under UCPR r 7.36 in two related probate matters about the estates of Gaber Awad (“the father”) and Ognee Mikheil (“the mother”). The mother and father had four children. They had two daughters, Marciel (the third defendant) and Nahed (the plaintiff). They also had two sons, Emad (the first defendant) and Ragaie (the second defendant).
Caveat
The parties’ mother died on 9 July 2022, ostensibly leaving Wills dated 19 December 2017 and 22 August 2005. The Wills have left her estate to the parties’ father, Gaber Awad. He died on 7 October 2024. He left Wills dated 23 September 2022, 12 April 2019, and 23 August 2005. To challenge a Will in New South Wales, you usually start by lodging a probate caveat. This is a formal notice filed in the Supreme Court. It temporarily stops a grant of probate from being issued. By placing the administration of the estate on hold, the caveat gives the challenger time. The challenger can then raise concerns about the Will’s validity. This happens before an executor can take control of the estate. In this article, we explain what a probate caveat is. We cover who can file one and how the process works. This is for those seeking to prevent an invalid Will from being admitted to probate.
The Property
Both estates are in dispute. Yet, the real fight concerns the father’s estate. It is centred on a property – a house in Blacktown. The matter involves the plaintiff’s motion. This motion is to remove caveats that the first and second defendants lodged against the plaintiff. These caveats are linked to the application for probate of any of the father’s Wills. It was presented before Lindsay J in mid-September. His Honour has case-managed the proceedings since then. Two of the parties to related probate proceedings are involved in the matter of Estate of Gaber Awad (proceedings 2025/312914). They are also involved in the matter of Estate of Ognee Mikheil (proceedings 2025/312915). They made applications for pro bono legal assistance.
The four adult children are in significant conflict. The plaintiff seeks probate of her father, Gaber Awad’s, 2022 Will. This Will leaves the entire estate to her. The first defendant challenges that Will as invalid. The third defendant, appearing from Egypt, relies on the 2019 Will, which divides the property equally among all four siblings. The 2019 Will is incomplete but still relevant. Caveats lodged by the brothers have prevented the plaintiff from progressing the 2022 Will.
The key estate asset is the Blacktown property, valued at around $950,000–$1.3 million, but heavily mortgaged. Critically, both loans are in deep default. Monthly default interest of over $3,000 is accruing. This swells the total debt to well over $320,000. It is quickly eroding the estate. Earlier representations to the Court suggested that approximately $20,000 was owing. This proved to be completely inaccurate when the parties produced the mortgagee’s statement.
The 2019 Will leaves the Blacktown house to all four children in equal shares. Nevertheless, that Will is incomplete. It does not fully deal with the residuary estate. Evidence suggests the Blacktown property is essentially the estate’s only asset. In September, the parties told Lindsay J—and later repeated to the Duty List judge—that only $20,513.52 remained outstanding on the mortgage.
The plaintiff attempted to prove the 2022 Will. This Will leaves them the entire estate. Nevertheless, it has been blocked by caveats lodged by the first defendant. He alleges that the 2022 Will is invalid—either forged, fraudulent, or produced through undue influence by the plaintiff. The Court will decide those issues if the matter proceeds to a probate trial. Even if the plaintiff succeeds, the defendants can bring family provision claims under s59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
The Mortgage
The Blacktown property, a vacant house valued between $950,000 and $1.3 million, is heavily mortgaged. The parents took out the loans (111177 and 111410), and some siblings allege the parents were exposed to unconscionable dealings. The Court is not presently in a position to assess that allegation. Meanwhile, the probate dispute has caused significant financial damage to the estate. Mortgage statements reveal a serious problem: both loans are in default, and high default interest (11.5%) is capitalised each month. The Court required the production of these statements to assess the situation appropriately.
For loan 111177, the debt increased from $157,586.49 (as of July 2024) to $177,270.61 (as of June 2025), with monthly interest rising from $1,525.24 to $1,702.43 over the financial year. For loan 111410, the balance increased from $112,238.08 (as of July 2024) to $125,858.71 (as of June 2025), with the monthly interest rising from $1,088.43 to $1,208.70. The siblings told Lindsay J—and later the Duty List judge—that only $20,513.52 remained owing. The mortgagee’s default notices show that the sibling submissions misled the Court.
As at 30 June 2025, the joint debt was $303,129.32, with total default interest of $2,911.13 per month. The situation has inevitably worsened in the months since June. Interest is now above $3,000 per month. The total debt exceeds $320,000. This results in a rapid depletion of the estate’s equity unless the estate can halt the default interest.
Default Notices
The newly produced default notices, nevertheless, show that this was entirely incorrect and had the effect of misleading the Court. As of 30 June 2025, the total debt on the two loans was $303,129.32 ($125,858.71 plus $177,270.61), with $2,911.13 in monthly default interest. The financial position has inevitably deteriorated further in the four months since June. Default interest is now accruing at more than $3,000 per month, pushing the total debt well above $320,000. Unless the estate takes action to stop the rising interest, its equity in the Blacktown property will continue to decrease. The siblings’ ongoing dispute contributes to this erosion. The litigation is expected to continue for some time.
An argument to rent out or sell the Blacktown property aims to preserve the estate’s assets. Still, it seems to have been ignored by the parties. This is due to the entrenched family conflict. The plaintiff filed an affidavit in response to the Court’s directions. It showed the expenditure of money to prepare the house for rental. An estimated rent of $680 per week was also obtained. This is approximately $2,720 per month. Nonetheless, the default interest exceeds this amount by at least $300 per month. For this reason, renting is not financially practical. Extra funds must be injected into the estate.
Given the duration of the dispute, the Court considers that selling the property is in the estate’s best interests. The only choice would be for the plaintiff to contribute significant funds to reduce the mortgage. The plaintiff claims the entire property under the 2022 Will. Still, the plaintiff’s affidavit indicates the lack of means to do so. The hostility between the siblings was significant. As a result, Lindsay J raised the possibility of appointing an independent administrator to take control of the estate. Nonetheless, the Court has yet to take that step.
With the extra financial information now available, the Court has determined something important. All parties should be obligated to show cause why the Court should not appoint an independent administrator. Such an appointment would guarantee impartial communication with the third Defendant in Egypt. This would appropriately safeguard her interests. This action is necessary amid the intense conflict between her Australian siblings.
Slattery J held that the estate is rapidly diminishing. The real problem is not legal representation. It is the preservation of the estate assets. The estate must either sell the property or inject funds to cover mounting interest. Renting the property would still leave a monthly shortfall.
Independent Administrator
Given the siblings’ entrenched conflict, Lindsay J had already warned that the estate needs an independent administrator. With updated financial information, the Court required all parties to show cause why they should not appoint such an administrator. If the dispute is going to continue, the estate must take steps to prevent further financial loss. The property either needs to be rented or sold to preserve its value. The parties have ignored the practical issues amid the family conflict.
The plaintiff’s affidavit was filed after the Court’s directions. It shows she has paid for works to make the property rentable. She has obtained an estimated rent of $680 per week (around $2,720 per month). Even accepting that estimate, rental income is at least $300 per month less than the accumulating default interest. Without external funding, renting is not a practical choice. The Court believes it is in the estate’s best interests to sell the property. This decision is based on the duration of the siblings’ disputes. The plaintiff contribute funds to reduce the mortgage. Yet, her affidavit shows that they can’t afford to do so.
Pro Bono Request
The Court’s record indicates that the conflict between the siblings is severe. Lindsay J has already flagged the possibility of appointing an independent administrator to manage the estate. With the updated financial information now before it, the Court has decided that all parties must show cause. They need to explain why the Court should not appoint an independent administrator. This administrator would help in communicating impartially with the third defendant in Egypt. The goal is to guarantee the proper protection of their interests amid the siblings’ disputes.
The Court returned to the applications by the plaintiff and the first defendant for pro bono representation. The plaintiff’s application was initially granted by Brereton J, contingent on revocation if another party objected. The first defendant objected. He submitted that if the plaintiff receives assistance, he is entitled to the same. This is based on the grounds of fairness. Otherwise, the first defendant prefers that all parties continue unrepresented. The plaintiff submits that their financial means are limited. They have no real property, an old car, some jewellery, and income solely from Centrelink. Nevertheless, the financial circumstances of the others stay unclear.
After observing the plaintiff and first defendant in person, Slattery J considers the dispute to be unusually combative. In these circumstances, the Court views the plaintiff’s claims of financial hardship with caution. Although the claims were not tested in cross-examination. His honour views the entitlement to pro bono assistance with caution.
Turning to the pro bono requests, Slattery J found:
- The pro bono scheme is limited and reserved for genuinely deserving cases.
- The plaintiff and first defendant are capable of representing themselves and pursuing their own interests vigorously.
- There is insufficient evidence that the plaintiff genuinely lacks resources. The plaintiff and the others will gain substantially from the estate.
- Pro bono representation is unlikely to resolve the central issue of estate preservation.
- Parity arguments (that if one gets assistance, all should) failed due to a lack of evidence of genuine need.
The circumstances of this estate need the preservation of limited voluntary resources. These resources are available from the Bar Association and the Law Society for pro bono legal assistance. Thus, referring these proceedings for pro bono legal assistance will not presently advance a resolution. It will not aid the administration of the estate. Importantly, it is neither in the interests of the parties nor in the public interest. Slattery J recommended that the Registrar convey the judgment to the Bar Association. The Bar Association and Law Society should explore whether a junior practitioner can accept the matter. They should also consider offering reduced or deferred fees. Slattery J believes early mediation is appropriate.
The matter comes before Lindsay J again on 25 November 2025. He has orders to consider the possible appointment of an independent administrator. The pro bono applications incurred no costs.
Court-appointed pro bono assistance is not guaranteed. The Court grants it only at its discretion. Judges will closely examine the circumstances. They will be careful before placing any burden on formal pro bono schemes. This is especially true in disputes involving an identifiable estate. In some cases, the Court will instead suggest seeking representation at reduced or favourable rates. Alternatively, proceeding with mediation is considered as a practical step. Litigants should approach the process with realistic expectations. Pro bono referrals exist to support the administration of justice. They do not offer a right to free legal representation. As each application turns on its own merits.