Campion v Paikos

~ -!i,,1usTRALIA,1il--
--~~$-««.<"-"

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A20 of 1990
B e t w e e n -
LEANNE MAY CAMPION

Applicant

and
PAUL PAIKOS

Respondent

Application for special
leave to appeal

BRENNAN J
TOOHEY J

McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

Campion

23/8/90

AT ADELAIDE ON THURSDAY, 23 AUGUST 1990, AT 10.02 AM

applicant. (instructed by Finlaysons)

MS F. NELSON, QC:

May it please the Court, I appear with my

learned friend, MS J. PALIOS, for the respondent.
(instructed by Palios Meegan & Nicholson)

BRENNAN J: Yes, Mr Trim.

The Court has seen the nature of

the application here. It involves the same
question as Gogic v MBP does it not?

MR TRIM: It does, Your Honour, precisely the same point.

BRENNAN J:	And that matter has been the subject of a grant of special leave and is pending in this Court.
Now, does that mean that you wish to have this
matter stood over until after the Gogic appeal is
heard or do you wish to join in.

MR TRIM: Yes, it does, Your Honour, because the applicant

in these proceedings is more than content to ride
on the coat-tails, as it were, of the applicant in Gogic's case and would not seek to be heard unless
the applicant in Gogic's case failed at what
apparently is a procedural hurdle that has arisen
in that application.

BRENNAN J:

I see. Well then, what is your present

application, to have the matter adjourned until
after the Gogic's case and then you can - - -

MR TRIM: Yes, if the Court pleases.

BRENNAN J:	Ms Nelson.
MS NELSON:	I have nothing to add.

BRENNAN J: Well, what order would you wish: that the

matter be adjourned with liberty to restore it on
seven days notice to the other party?

MR TRIM: Yes, if the Court pleases.

BRENNAN J: Very well then, the application for special

leave in this matter will stand adjourned with
leave to either party to restore it to the list on
seven days notice to the other party and to the
Registrar.

MR TRIM: If the Court pleases.

BRENNAN J: Thank you, Mr Trim.

AT 10.04 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Campion

23/8/90

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the applicant, represented by Mr D. Trim, sought special leave to appeal. The respondent was represented by Ms F. Nelson, QC, and Ms J. Paliós. The dispute concerned a legal question identical to that raised in the case of *Gogic v MBP*, which had already been granted special leave to appeal and was pending before the High Court.

The applicant's primary legal issue was whether the High Court should grant special leave to appeal. However, the applicant indicated a desire to defer this application, preferring to await the outcome of the *Gogic v MBP* appeal. The applicant expressed a willingness to be bound by the decision in *Gogic v MBP*, only seeking to be heard if the applicant in that case failed to overcome a procedural hurdle.

The Court, presided over by Brennan J, acknowledged the applicant's submission and the identical nature of the legal question to *Gogic v MBP*. The Court considered the applicant's request to adjourn the special leave application, with the respondent having no objection. The Court then made orders for the application for special leave to stand adjourned, with liberty granted to either party to restore the matter to the list upon seven days' notice to the other party and to the Court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established