The case that changed me – Kristy Nunn

You have to find a delicate balance when working on a case against a self-represented plaintiff. I felt for this particular man as a human, but I wish he had assistance from somebody because there was only so much I could do, when I clearly had a competing interest in the case.

The case was Voicu v Smith and it was heard in 2012.  The plaintiff was in a desperate situation and was going at proceedings very aggressively. English wasn’t his first language, so it was challenging for him to present his case in court. On the phone, he was getting frustrated, became aggressive and would yell. Phone calls were terminated and requests were made to put everything in writing. He didn’t have email and came to our office once with six folders in a Woolworths shopping bag as his evidence. He would deliver things without appointments but demand to talk about his case in the reception.

The whole sorry saga started in 1999 when the plaintiff had a workplace accident. He was working as a temporary labour hire in the Hunter Valley mines and alleged a metal coil fell on his head. He retained lawyers to act for him. The key issue in dispute was whether the plaintiff, while working on a mine site, was struck by a heavy plate on his head. There were no eyewitnesses. 

His common law claim proceeded to hearing in 2004 and the plaintiff was unsuccessful. His evidence as to how the accident happened was not accepted. He lost his case and was ordered to pay costs. Six years later, in 2010, the plaintiff (now self-represented) brought a second set of proceedings against his former lawyers. Among a variety of claims, he said the lawyers didn’t interview a whole pile of witnesses or get expert evidence that would have changed the outcome. I was then appointed to act to defend the matter.

What followed was two years of time, energy, money, and stress that could have been avoided. It was a train wreck and I really felt for him. He didn’t need to be there if he had just listened to legal advice that his case had no prospects. Underlying proceedings advised he had a bad case, but he decided to run it anyway.

Not only did the plaintiff not have a case, but he was after a ridiculous amount of money. It was just not possible to have any type of resolution apart from going in front of a judge, which caused significant delay and legal costs.

Ordinarily you would just write to another lawyer and say “this is why your claim will be dismissed”, but in the case of a self-represented litigant, you’ve got an obligation to set out what the rules are, and educate them as to why they won’t have a claim.

When things became aggressive towards me, boundaries were put in place. He was clearly aggrieved by what was going on and wanted to talk to someone, but I wasn’t the person.

My advice would be; if you’re going to self-represent, you must follow the court rules and educate yourself. If someone is self-represented because they can’t afford lawyers for ongoing litigation, there are various services available that can give them advice about whether their claim has any prospects. And if it does, what the measure of damages might be, so they have some framework to work with.

This case moulded me in all my dealings with self-represented plaintiffs. I had to set boundaries about communication, try to be as compassionate as possible with respect for what he was trying to say, and act in the best interests for my own client. A balancing act. This is the first example I give to all my staff when dealing with someone who is self-represented.