.~
~
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 |
- AGLC
- Byrnes v The Repatriation Commission [1992] HCATrans 170
- Case
- [1992] HCATrans 170
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.