Ceylan v The Queen

This matter came before the High Court of Australia concerning an application by solicitors for a declaration that they cease to act for their client, and a subsequent application by the Director of Public Prosecutions to strike out the proceedings for want of prosecution. The solicitors appeared by Mr. Cavoli, instructed by Ralph Lloyd, Sampson, while the Director of Public Prosecutions appeared by Mr. Rivett, instructed by the Director of Public Prosecutions, Victoria.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the solicitors should be permitted to cease acting for their client and, if so, whether the applicant's matter should be struck out for want of prosecution. The Court also considered the procedural difficulties arising from Order 69A of the High Court Rules, which appeared to be sparse in its provisions regarding such situations, particularly concerning the filing of appeal books.

The Court reasoned that the solicitors' application for a declaration to cease acting was unopposed and, upon being satisfied of service, was prepared to make the declaration. Regarding the application to strike out, the Court noted the limited scope of Order 69A and the absence of specific provisions for striking out for want of prosecution in this context. However, referencing a precedent set by Justice Gaudron in a similar situation, the Court determined that an order requiring the applicant for special leave to appeal to file application books by a specified date, with the consequence of dismissal for want of prosecution if not filed, was appropriate. This approach was considered to follow the rules and bypass practice directions, which the Court deemed not to matter in this instance.

The Court made an order that the applicant for special leave to appeal file seven copies of the application books in the Melbourne office of the registry by 6 January. In the event that the application books were not filed by that date, the application for special leave to appeal would stand dismissed for want of prosecution. This order was deemed satisfactory by the Director of Public Prosecutions.