Byrnes v The Repatriation Commission

Case [1992] HCATrans 170


.~

~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No Sl45 of 1991

B e t w e e n -

CLIFFORD JOHN BYRNES

Applicant

and

THE REPATRIATION COMMISSION

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

MASON CJ
TOOHEY J

MCHUGH J .

Byrnes 1 5/6/92

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 5 JUNE 1992, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MASON CJ:  Mr Emmett, before the next matter is called, I

notice that you are in Byrnes v Repatriation

Commission.

MR EMMETT:  Yes, Your Honour.

MASON CJ: Is your opponent here?

MR EMMETT:  I have not seen him.

MASON CJ: The reason why I mention it at this stage is that

on the face of it, the case seems to contain a

question that is similar to the question on which

we have reserved judgment in Bushell v The

Repatriation Commission, and thus it occurred to us

that it is a case that might perhaps stand over to

await the delivery of judgment in Bushell v The

Repatriation Commission.

MR EMMETT: That, Your Honour, was something that occurred

to us as to be the appropriate course to take in

relation to the matter.

MASON CJ:  Have you discussed it with - - -
MR EMMETT:  I have not had the opportunity yet. I spoke to

those instructing me last night and it occurred to

us that that might be an appropriate course if it

appealed to Your Honours.

MASON CJ: When your opponent arrives, you might take the

matter up with him and if the parties were minded

to agree to the matter standing over on that

footing, then you would have liberty to mention it

to the Court during the course of the morning.

MR EMMETT:  May it please Your Honour.
AT 9.34 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED 

UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

UPON RESUMING AT 10.21 AM:

MR A.T. McINNES, QC: Before the next matter is called, I

wonder would Your Honour allow me to mention the

matter of Byrnes v Repatriation Commission, in

which I appear with my learned friend,

MR I. SANDERSON for the applicant. (instructed by

Vardanega Roberts)

Byrnes 2 5/6/92
MR A.R. EMMETT, QC:  I appear with my learned friend,

MR R.M. HENDERSON, for the respondent. (instructed

by Australian Government Solicitor)

MASON CJ: Yes, Mr Emmett.

MR McINNESS:  Your Honour, it would seem appropriate to ask

that the matter stand over until the Court hands

down judgment in the Bushell case. The Bushell

case may well resolve the issue in this case one

way or - - -

MASON CJ: Yes, it is possible. The matter will stand

adjourned by consent to a date to be fixed.

MR McINNESS: If the Court pleases.

AT 10.22 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

TO A DATE TO BE FIXED

Byrnes 5/6/92
Details
AGLC
Byrnes v The Repatriation Commission [1992] HCATrans 170
Case
[1992] HCATrans 170
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal in *Byrnes v The Repatriation Commission*, heard in the High Court of Australia. The applicant, represented by Mr. A.T. McInnes, QC, and Mr. I. Sanderson, sought an adjournment of the proceedings. The respondent, the Repatriation Commission, was represented by Mr. A.R. Emmett, QC, and Mr. R.M. Henderson.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the case presented a question similar to that being considered in a related matter, *Bushell v The Repatriation Commission*. The parties sought to determine if the resolution of the issue in *Bushell* would also resolve the issue in *Byrnes*, thereby making an adjournment appropriate.

The Chief Justice, Mason CJ, noted the potential similarity between the cases. Counsel for the applicant, Mr. McInnes, formally requested that the matter stand over until judgment was handed down in *Bushell*, stating that the *Bushell* case might resolve the issue in *Byrnes*. Counsel for the respondent, Mr. Emmett, indicated that this course of action had been considered by his instructing solicitors. By consent of both parties, the Court ordered that the matter be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.