Callaghan v Everest Household Goods Pty Ltd & Anor

[2003] HCATrans 371

[2003] HCATrans 371

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S104 of 2003

B e t w e e n -

LAWRENCE MICHAEL CALLAGHAN

Applicant

and

EVEREST HOUSEHOLD GOODS PTY LTD T/AS UNION DISCOUNT STORES

First Respondent

CONSUMER, TRADER AND TENANCY TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ
GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 16 SEPTEMBER 2003, AT 2.54 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR L.M. CALLAGHAN appeared in person.

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, Mr Callaghan.

MR CALLAGHAN:   I was under the impression that a submitting appearance has been filed by both defendants or just one ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ:   That is a correct impression.  There is a certificate from the Deputy Registrar that she has been informed by the first and second respondents that the first and second respondents submit to any order of the Court save as to costs.  Go ahead and tell us what your argument is.

MR G. GERTLER:   My name is George Gertler.  I am from Everest Household Goods.

GLEESON CJ:   Just take a seat.  Yes.

MR CALLAGHAN:    I am willing to rely on my 10‑page summary of argument, your Honour.

GLEESON CJ:   You have nothing to add to that?

MR CALLAGHAN:    No, not at this ‑ ‑ ‑

GLEESON CJ:   Very well.  We will adjourn for a short time to consider the course we will take in this matter.

AT 2.56 PM SHORT ADJOURNMENT

UPON RESUMING AT 2.57 PM:

GLEESON CJ:   The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales refusing leave to appeal from a decision of Justice Dunford.  Justice Dunford in turn dismissed the applicant’s appeal against a decision of the Consumer, Trader and Tenancy Tribunal.  The applicant contends that the Tribunal, Justice Dunford and the Court of Appeal were all in error and he now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

We have examined the written submissions filed in support of this application by the applicant and we have come to the conclusion that no error has been shown in the decision of the Court of Appeal.  For that reason, special leave to appeal is refused.

AT 2.58 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED