Adam Jonathon Ireland (As Executor of the Estate of Dean Edward Ireland)

[2010] HCATrans 270

[2010] HCATrans 270

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Perth  No P40 of 2010

B e t w e e n -

ADAM JONATHON IRELAND (AS EXECUTOR OF THE ESTATE OF DEAN EDWARD IRELAND), CLARK ERVIN EASTERDAY, LEONARD LANCELOT IRELAND

First Applicants

KAYLENE HOLDINGS PTY LTD (ACN 009 462 195)

Second Applicant

BRENDA ANNE EASTERDAY

Third Applicant

WEBGO PTY LTD (ACN 009 022 057)

Fourth Applicant

FIM PTY LTD (ACN 008 964 609)

Fifth Applicant

PAUL CHRISTOPHER IRELAND

Sixth Applicant

and

NORILYA MINERALS PTY LTD

Respondent

Application for expedition

FRENCH CJ

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT PERTH ON WEDNESDAY, 20 OCTOBER 2010, AT 4.03 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR M.J. McCUSKER, QC:   If it please your Honour, I appear with my learned friend, MR J.A. THOMSON, for the applicants.  (instructed by Bostock and Ryan Barristers & Solicitors)

MR S.M. DAVIES, SC:   If your Honour pleases, I appear with MS K.F. BANKS‑SMITH for the respondent.  (instructed by Norton Rose Australia)

HIS HONOUR:   Now, Mr McCusker, I have read the papers and it seems to me, subject to what both counsel might have to say, that the most useful way of dealing with this matter might be to go straight to the hearing of the special leave application – not now, but tomorrow morning – on the basis that the Court of Appeal has now published its reasons.  There will have been great difficulty, of course, in dealing with anything before that time.  You, of course, have filed, I think, submissions in support of your application for special leave as well as in relation to the stay application.

MR McCUSKER:   That is so, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Mr Davies, you have filed your submissions of opposition to the application for a stay.  I think you have mentioned, in those submissions, reasons why you think special leave has little prospect of success or being granted.

MR DAVIES:   I have, your Honour, yes.

HIS HONOUR:   But you have not, of course, filed a full written submission.  What I have in mind is that if we were able to deal with this tomorrow morning, we could rely upon Mr McCusker’s written submissions.  I would not require you to present a full set of written submissions tomorrow morning.  I would give you liberty to argue, present your case entirely orally.  We know what your points are anyway.  They are there in the other submissions, but I do not want to disadvantage you in any way.  Does that create a problem for you?

MR DAVIES:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   All right.

MR McCUSKER:   I would agree with that course, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   So we would then adjourn it to 9 o’clock tomorrow morning and there would be no question of a stay, of course, unless you are successful on the special leave application.

MR McCUSKER:   Of course, yes.

HIS HONOUR:   So on your summons which was filed, I think, on 13 October what I would propose to order is firstly – I take it there is no objection to the abridgement? 

MR DAVIES:   No, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   Yes. 

1.That the time for service of the summons be abridged to 4.00 pm on the 13 October. 

2.The cost of the summons will be reserved. 

3.The hearing of the application for special leave to appeal be expedited to the 21 October at 9.00 am. 

4.The respondent have leave to present its argument in opposition to the grant of special leave entirely orally.  

5.The summons would otherwise be dismissed.

MR McCUSKER:   Your Honour, that time for service be abridged, was actually served on the 14 October.

HIS HONOUR:   All right.  I will alter that to read the 14th.

MR McCUSKER:   Thank you, your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:   All right.  So if there is nothing further, we will see you both tomorrow morning at 9.00 am.

AT 4.08 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED