Collier & Anor v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited

[1991] HCATrans 175

~

• 'I

'

~

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S90 of 1988

B e t w e e n -

ROBERT JOHN COLLIER and

MARION LOUISE COLLIER

Applicants

and

AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND

BANKING GROUP LIMITED

Respondent

Ex parte application for

injunctive relief and/or

restraining orders

McHUGH J

Collier 1 22/7/91

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON MONDAY, 22 JULY 1991, AT 10.21 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MRS M.L. COLLIER:  Your Honour, I lodged a summons and

affidavit on Friday and in the process - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Just excuse me. You are Marion Louise Collier?

MRS COLLIER: Marion Louise Collier, yes.

HIS HONOUR:  And is the gentleman with you Robert John

Collier?

MRS COLLIER:  My husband, yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, I have read those documents.

MRS COLLIER: There was a problem, Your Honour. In the

process of discussing things and Miss Bishop being

called away and neither - the Registry not having a
copy of Camilleri and me offering to go to our car

to collect it, there was another affidavit that had

been prepared that she had seen but because I was

going down to the car, said, "Take everything".

So, of course, I piled it into the bag. When I got

home I found out I still had it. It is mentioned

in the summons so I would ask may I present it now?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MRS COLLIER:  Thank you. This affidavit consists of quite a

few annexures of which I have not been able to get

them all stapled together for the - I have in the

annexures, but I have not been able to staple them

together for the full list. I am sorry,

Your Honour, I am just getting the other part of it

together.

HIS HONOUR: That is all right.

MRS COLLIER:	I must apologize for this, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Take your time.

MRS COLLIER:  I have got it, I think.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, I give leave to file in Court an

affidavit of Marion Louise Collier, sworn on

26 June 1991, at Sydney, together with the

annexures thereto. Will you just excuse me while I

have a read of it.

MRS COLLIER:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes. Well, perhaps you might take me to any

parts that you think are relevant to this present

application, Mrs Collier.

Collier 2 22/7/91

MRS COLLIER:  I have actually itemized points down that I

feel fits in with each part of the affidavit.	If
that would be of any assistance.

HIS HONOUR: Well, the first point is what jurisdiction has

this Court got to make the order which you seek?

MRS COLLIER: Well, under section 32 of the Judiciary Act

1903 which it states that:

The High Court in the exercise of its

original jurisdiction in any cause or matter

pending before it, whether originated in the

High Court or removed into it from another

Court, shall have power to grant, and shall

grant, either absolutely or on such terms and
conditions as are just, all such remedies

whatsoever as any of the parties thereto are

entitled to in respect of any legal or

equitable claim properly brought forward by

them respectively in the cause or matter; so

that as far as possible all matters in

controversy between the parties regarding the
cause of action, or arising out of or

connected with the cause of action, may be completely and finally determined, and all

multiplicity of legal proceedings concerning

any of such matters may be avoided.

Now, at 2032.1, in Camilleri, it states:

A similar provision to which the same

principles apply is s 22 of the Federal Court

Act 1976.

The definition of what we are asking for, the Anton

Pillar orders, is:

An Anton Pillar order is an order in equity
which can be made at any stage of the

proceedings authorizing a plaintiff and his

solicitor or a court official to enter a

defendant's premises to inspect and remove

papers or other articles.

HIS HONOUR:  But where is the original jurisdiction of this

Court? What cause or matter is before this Court

in_tts original jurisdiction?

MRS COLLIER: At the moment, before the Court is the S90

case of which a stay was placed by Her Honour

Gaudron J - - -

HIS HONOUR: But that is an application for special leave to

appeal, is it not?

MRS COLLIER: Yes, that is right, Your Honour.·

Collier 22/7/91

HIS HONOUR: That is not a matter in the original

jurisdiction of a court.

MRS COLLIER:  No, it is not, Your Honour. A notice of

motion was lodged in this Court on - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I understand you have an application before

Justice Gaudron, or I assume it will be before

Justice Gaudron, next week on 29 July.

MRS COLLIER:  We have an application before the Court on

29 July to enable us to present a case to ask for a

stay of proceedings to be removed from the case and

asking other matters. The case is to come up, as

you have said, next Monday and the reason for which

I am here and what has prompted me to be here is

although - and I can itemize out the incidents,

which are slightly out of the ordinary, throughout

my affidavits.	I had wished to acquire a letter
that was in my medical file.	It was actually a

letter that is of no incidence for this case. It
was not for this case at all and to be quite

honest, if I can say, it was out of curiosity -

when I had stated what was in the letter to my

present doctor, out of. curiosity, he would like to

read it. I came to the Court to obtain this letter

because I had contacted the doctor who had been my

doctor up until November 1988 but because of
actions against - of the respondents, claimed that
he could no longer treat me because of the breach
of confidentiality.

So, I contacted that doctor to get a copy of the letter, believing that medical files by law

have to be kept for seven years, and I was told,

"No", I could not have a copy. I subsequently came

to the court, naturally assuming and believing that

I would get a copy from the court by paying the

necessary photocopying money. There was actually a
new officer at the court who had to go and get all

the files out to make sure that I had the right file and in the process of looking through this

file I found the letter I wanted. There was not

the letter that was a referral to it. It was not

in here. But I found a number of pages that would

have been like two pages that are stapled together

and a number of those pages that were supposed to

be the file notes of the doctors.

Something just looked wrong on one of them, so

when I went back through them, what would be, say,

16 June's entry on the back page of one of these

two pages, and it is before the half-way mark, on

another copy it is at the very bottom of another

page with nothing at the top and it is on the front

page. Subsequently, because of that, I started

checking through and I found out tha.t there is

Collier 4 22/7/91

duplications in this medical file. For example - I

am just using "16 June" because it twigged -	16 June might be an entry of something or other,
say - well, I have problems with my neck, so, say,
"pain in the left side of the neck" and that would
be all that would be the entry. Yet, on this other
entry, it has got something to do with the neck but
it has got about four or five lines written down.
It just did not collaborate.

So, I then spoke with Registrar Segal and

Registrar Gilroy. Registrar Gilroy said, "Well,

itemize out what is in there that isn't right and

I'll make arrangements for Registrar Segal to have

the matter taken to the High Court" because we had

a case before you. I then went back over

everything and Registrar Segal said, "We'll have to
get your permission to take it up to the High

Court", and I asked for the police to be called.

Now, I was taken into a Mrs Rossi's office and

the police were called. In fact, I called the

police and Detective Sergeant Liz Dennis, I believe

his name is, from Australia Street or - down the

bottom - Commonwealth Street Police Station, came

up and had a look at it and he concurred with me

that there was a difference and stated that he

would have to contact the doctor because the doctor

had the original file and he does not know what

doctors, you know, have or do not have in their

file. He also advised that I subsequently contact

the doctor with the intention of seeing the

original medical file.

When I did, I finally got through to the

doctor late on Thursday night and he was on a call,

so I rang him any way but he is not our doctor any

more, and I asked if I could see the original file

and I was told, "No", I could not, that his

solicitors, Tress Cocks And Maddox, would not like

that, you know, for me to see it. I said, "Well,

look, you know, it might be needed in court."

"Well, I can give you a photocopy probably and I

could probably give the court a photocopy but I

won't let the original out." Now that, therefore,

prompted me to believe fully, number one, with the

problems that I could explain about the Federal

Court about incidences that have happened, whether,

by-the Federal Court's knowledge or inadvertently

that have come about, it then prompted me to come

and ask this Court for Anton Pillar orders.

HIS HONOUR:  I appreciate that. I have read the affidavit

that you have filed and I also sought to

familiarize myself with your application which is

on next Monday to understand the background of the

matter, but it seems to me that the problems that

Collier 22/7/91

you have in obtaining these orders are these:

first of all, so far as I am aware, there is no

proceeding in the original jurisdiction of this

Court at the moment. All that there is is an

application for special leave to appeal against a

judgment of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

That has been stayed.

MRS COLLIER:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	And you are now seeking to remove the stay.

MRS COLLIER: Yes, that is right.

HIS HONOUR:  So, section 32 is not operative, but

independently of section 32, I have no doubt that

this Court has got jurisdiction to preserve any
subject-matter which is necessary for the purposes

of hearing some application in this particular

Court. But an Anton Pillar order is only made in

exceptional circumstances and it would be necessary

for you to satisfy me that (a), the documents in

questions are relevant to the application which you

will bring before the Court next Monday and,

secondly, that there are grounds for fearing that

the persons who have possession of those documents

will destroy them in the meantime.

MRS COLLIER: Well, Your Honour, if I may take you then

through my affidavit of 26 June and the one of

Friday, I believe that I can show to you by actions

that have been done in the past that it is quite

possible.

HIS HONOUR: Well, let us deal with the first issue. What

relevance have any of these documents to do with

your application before the Court next Monday?

MRS COLLIER: With regard to the medical file, the relevance

is that the non-party to the case obtained two

subpoenas: one was for the production of a medical

file for documents and one was for a witness to
give evidence.	Now, the second subpoena was not in

the file until about the middle of last year at

which I got a copy and took to the Sheriff's Office

of New South Wales. I have had conversations with

the Sheriff's Office, a Mr Len Crompton, and I

believe Your Honour will bear with me on the fact

that a New South Wales government department is not

able to give out written information without court

orders or the like.

I have been informed that this sheriff who,

Justice Einfeld, on 10 November and - actually,

22 December, in his final judgment, laid a lot of

ground on this reputable witness and on his

credibility.

Collier 6 22/7/91

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, but what has that got to do with your

application before the Court next week to revoke a

stay? The Court made a stay under section 60 of

the Bankruptcy Act.

MRS COLLIER: That is right.

HIS HONOUR: Well, not made the stay.

MRS COLLIER: Ordered - - -

HIS HONOUR:  The section itself makes the stay, does it not?

MRS COLLIER: Well, what I am saying is that the bankruptcy

application for annulment had not proceeded through the court at the time that the High Court came into

sitting.	The High Court commenced on the morning
of the 10th at approximately 10 am.	It was then

that we went to the Federal Court before

Justice Einfeld where we were scheduled to appear

after the High Court being adjourned until 12 noon

by Her Honour.

When we went before Justice Einfeld - this is

what I am saying - the information that I have

obtained since then and further events have come to

prove that the information given to His Honour by

the then applicants for intervention was definitely

incorrect and it was also - - -

HIS HONOUR:	But how will these documents prove that fact?
MRS COLLIER:	The subpoena was made out in the name of

Wal Bare, Court House, Campbelltown, and it was on

the sheriff at Campbelltown,

Mr Walter William Bare, who has complied with the

subpoena but it is not in the file. But while

Mr Bare was sitting in the Federal Court of

Australia on 10 November, he was also signed on in

charge of a jury in a criminal matter at

Campbelltown District Court.	Now, he is on on
9 November and also 10 November and the l0th's

records will show that he signed on in the morning

for this jury, signed them off at 1 pm for lunch

and back on again at 1.30 and then finished at the

end of the afternoon: a physical impossibility to

be in two places at once.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, but how does the documents prove that?

MRS COLLIER: Well, I am saying that the information put up

by the Bank was this witness who was supposedly

claiming that my husband and I were dishonest.

HIS HONOUR:  But that is another point altogether.

Collier 7 22/7/91

MRS COLLIER: Well, the medical file then comes into

existence because my reason for applying for an

annulment of bankruptcy was on medical grounds.

Now, the medical file was subpoenaed also on the

Wednesday before the Bank was a party to the case

and the documents were opened before they arrived

in Court.

HIS HONOUR:  I read that. I read what Justice Einfeld said

about that.

MRS COLLIER: Right. So, the thing is then that the medical

file that was accepted into evidence by His Honour

as R4 was not in relation to that period of time at

all and, in actual fact, I am saying now that when
I went to have a look at some documents in that

file I noticed that there are two copies, as I have

said, of various entries and that there is a

letter, in particular, out of that file, possibly

more, but one that I know of that is no longer in

that file. I would then say that following that

point, I would go on to point out to you the

actions that have been carried out to try and cause

further trouble to both my husband and I in order

to prevent us from adequately being able to handle

what should be handed before us.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, but leave for the moment this question of the relevance of the documents, I still do not
follow what relevance those documents have got to
your application.
MRS COLLIER:	I am saying my application was stayed pending

the outcome of the - - -

HIS HONOUR:	I follow that but how will the production of these documents prove your case to revoke the stay?
MRS COLLIER:	Well, I believe that, number one, documents

brought to this Court could clarify my case in the

respect that it will prove that the information put

forward by the ANZ Bank through their counsel,

Mr Blake, was not correct and in actual fact that

the stay being placed on - because of the

bankruptcy, that the bankruptcy would not have

existed. The annulment would have gone through had

the information not been scandalous and defamatory

that was put forward by my husband and I. And I am

also saying, in the actual transcribing of that

case, that His Honour has offered to look into it

later, has actually stated that the matter go to

the registrar for referring to the DPP's Office and

has then placed a decree at the end as to the

honesty and integrity - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, but were the medical documents tendered in

evidence before Justice Einfeld?

Collier	22/7/91
MRS COLLIER: Yes, they were, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Right. So, they are part of the record, are

they?

MRS COLLIER: Yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:	But how did they go to - they were handed up to Justice Einfeld.	Were they actually tendered in
evidence?

MRS COLLIER: Well, they were handed up on the morning of

the 10th in an opened envelope and His Honour

ordered that they be photocopied and sent back -

the original sent back to the doctor by the

registry and that the ANZ Bank was to pay for it to

be couried out. That was on the Thursday, the

10th. They actually returned to the doctor's

surgery on the 16th. The evidence as stated by

counsel, Mr Blake, for the Bank, stated that the medical file was not needed for the intervention but it was needed for the annulment proceedings.

And I am saying that when the case did finally get

heard from 13 December on, that the medical file

was already in the court's process but whether -

the way it is worded, His aonour has decided

that the only part of the file that would be

accepted as exhibit was the R4 which I am saying

had no relevance whatsoever to my application for

annulment of bankruptcy.

HIS HONOUR: Well, if you are right on that point then

certain consequences may follow but I still do not

see what the relevance of these documents, as such,

have got to do with Monday's application. But

then, let me go to the second point: what is there
to indicate that unless an Anton Pillar order was

made today that these documents will be destroyed,

that is, whatever documents still exist will be

destroyed between now and next Monday?

MRS COLLIER:	I would say, Your Honour, because
HIS HONOUR:	Now, this is a serious allegation that you are

making, if it is an allegation you are making, so

you should choose your words very carefully.

MRS COLLIER:_ I will try to, Your Honour. I would say,

firstly, because the original two subpoenas were

granted to this party who were not a party to the

case; they were granted by a deputy registrar of

the Federal Court for production the following

morning and it was for a doctor some, what,

55 kilometres away. Then, the second: there is no

mention whatsoever throughout the transcript of
10 November of the second subpoena being issued but

there was a second subpoena and the person was in

Collier 9 22/7/91

the body of the court. It is openly admitted in

court by counsel for the bank that a Dr Evans was

engaged by his client to read that file.

HIS HONOUR: Well, yes, that may be the case, Mrs Collier.

MRS COLLIER:  Then I will go on to say that since that time

and my appeal against the annulment of bankruptcy

by - my appeal against the decision made by

Justice Einfeld, there has been adjournments and so

forth with normal cases. The matter came before

the Full Court of the Federal Court on 4 June last

year at Queen's Square and I had a solicitor, a

Mr Michael O'Dea, and counsel, and when we went to court, and I would say virtually as the court was coming in, the counsel for the ANZ Bank had a copy

of a deed of release and it was not entered into in

any way - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mrs Collier, what you are saying now has really

got nothing to do with - - -

MRS COLLIER: Well, I am just pointing out the difference in

what has been done with documents.

HIS HONOUR:  No, but let us take the order that you seek

against the Registrar of the Federal Court. Now,

on 18 July you attended at the registry, according

to your affidavit, and you saw certain documents

that were there.

MRS COLLIER: That is right, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, those documents that were there had been

there since sometime in 1988. They had been there

for three years and·they were still there on

18 July. Now, why would anyone think that those

documents that are there now or that were there on

18 July will disappear between today and next week?

MRS COLLIER: Because when I last saw the medical file, as I

said, it was photocopied with the original sent

back to Dr Grindbergs and nobody normally sees

their medical file when they go to a doctors, so

when I went in to see the file back in 1988 there
was a true correct file. There were no

duplications. There was one line of papers all the

war_through.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is your recollection but whether

your recollection be right or not, and let us

accept for the moment that your recollection is

right, the fact is that if the documents have gone,

they have already gone and the question is will

anything happen to the documents that were there on

18 July between today and next Monday, and it does

not seem to me, with great respect, that you have

Collier 10 22/7/91

got any real grounds for fearing that those

documents will be disposed of. If you are right,

then what has gone has already gone.

MRS COLLIER: Yes. I think, too, Your Honour, maybe I am

sort of first-hand, but I have probably got very

suspicious as a result of this deed of release.

HIS HONOUR:  I can see that you obviously have. And the

same with the doctor. Now, so far as the doctor is

concerned, whatever he has got, he has had there

for some years and it seems to me highly unlikely

that he would be destroying anything this week that

are there at this very moment.

MRS COLLIER:  Your Honour, I am sorry for not sounding

right - - -

HIS HONOUR:  No, you are not. No, I have listened to you,

and I think - - -

MRS COLLIER: If I could be - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You have put your case well but I do not think

that you have got anything, really, to fear during

this week and subject to what you would like to say

about it, I think it would be in your best

interests, in relation to this summons - perhaps I

should not say "in your best interests" - but the

appropriate order would be to stand your summons

over until it comes before the Judge on Monday when

you could renew your application. That Judge, who

is hearing the application, will be in a better

position to understand the full implications of

what you are putting~

MRS COLLIER: The only other thing, Your Honour, is that I

think, too, the fact of what has happened with this

deed of release and the fact that the Bank, through

their counsel, have produced two copies to the

court, one of which was on 26 June and the last one

was produced to me on 5 October, both - - -

HIS HONOUR: That is back in 1988, is it not?

MRS COLLIER:  No, last year, and that is in my affidavit of

26 June this year and that deed of release - I have

letters from Mr O'Dea saying it was not a

contractual arrangement - produced on 26 June was,

in fact, five days after the date that they finally

claimed the document had been executed and they had

already had stamp dutied on 25 June. Now, the copy

that was produced before the court on 26 June 1990

was, in fact, was a copy which had marks on the

back page that could line up with where the Bank

seal was and no further mention was made of that

deed until production on 5 October last year. It

Collier 11 22/7/91

is as a result of that carried on argument by

Mr Blake that they had the true original copy of the deed that resulted in the dismissal before the

Full Court of the overturning of the decision back

in June, and that was on 28 September. Yet the

affidavit presented to me by the respondent's
solicitor is dated 27 September and I do not

receive it until 5 October.

HIS HONOUR: But, again, your argument on this point is

directed to other matters rather than the -

MRS COLLIER:  I am just saying I am suspicious that

something will go wrong.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand your fears and your suspicion. I

think I fully understand your worries about this matter but, at the moment, I do not see that you

have got anything to fear that any documents which

are in existence at this moment will disappear in

the next week. If documents have disappeared, they

have disappeared but you have got to persuade me

that documents that are currently in existence are

likely to disappear in the next week. You

obviously know about Anton Pillar orders and you

know that they are only made in exceptional

circumstances.

MRS COLLIER: If I may, Your Honour, if I could just point

out about the deed of release and read the little

parts that I worked on it. I think it might help

you a lot.

HIS HONOUR:  Where is this?

MRS COLLIER: In the 26 June affidavit which I have very

carefully worded out anyway for you, and if I may

read it.

HIS HONOUR:  Which paragraph is this?

MRS COLLIER:  I have got it worded out. I can give you a

copy if you like or give you the original.

HIS HONOUR:  No, I - well -

MRS COLLIER: This is how I have worded out what is in the

affidavit. I have just, without rambling on,

written it down.

HIS HONOUR:  I see.

MRS COLLIER: Okay, annexure A contains a deed of release

which is a direct copy of the original which is

also available - we actually had the original, I

will point that out - for production to the Court,

if required. As with most conveyancing, I signed

Collier 12 22/7/91

the document after being in court where the counsel

for the respondent offered to settle out of court

on 4 June 1990. The only deed of release was given

to Mr Michael O'Dea by Mr M.L. Grant of the ANZ

Bank's solicitors on the provision that Mr O'Dea

arrange for a blank copy to be sent to Mr Grant's
office as he had stated that his word processor was

faulty and Mr O'Dea agreed to let Mr Grant have a

copy of the form to enable his client, the Bank, to

engross and execute their copy of the deed of

release. Later in the afternoon on 4 June 1990, my

husband went into the office of Mr O'Dea and signed

the deed of release. This was done as a matter of

convenience since we live at Camden and there would

be no trouble in getting the document organized.

Now, in that affidavit, annexure Bis letters

from Mr O'Dea stating that at no time was the copy

sent as a contractual arrangement and that

inadvertently the signatures went on the back page

but they did not on any other pages.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, I hear what you are putting to me

but how is that going to establish that either

Mr Gilroy or Dr Grindbergs or Tress Cocks And
Maddox are likely to destroy any documents that

they have got in their possession today between now

and next Monday?

MRS COLLIER:  I think by the fact that in the past that

things have been so available for the solicitors

for the respondent through the Federal Registry.	I
mean, they have managed to do things that are
normally unheard of and therefore the deed of
release - no one ever asked us to clarify which was the original deed of release even when offered and in the Federal Court I was actually - the
transcript of 26 June was only an abridged copy
until a couple of months later when the full copy
was obtainable.	I am not saying that anyone in the

Federal Court is guilty of anything, I am simply

saying that in the past things have been obtained

from that registry that normally would not be

available and whether it is by somebody who

probably no longer works there, I am not sure, but

I am hesitant at the thought of taking the chance

seeing that it would clarify my case of tort in

this Court and also given that in the past the

experiences that have actually transpired.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, I am more than hesitant about

making these orders.	I do not propose to make any
orders today.	I will stand the matter over until

Monday and you can make a further application to

the Judge who hears that case or I will dismiss it.

I have heard you at length and I do not think that you have established a case for making out an Anton

Collier 13 22/7/91

Pillar order. You have put the case as strongly as

you can in the circumstances but you have not

satisfied me, assuming I have got jurisdiction,

that these documents are likely to disappear, quite

apart from other difficulties.

MRS COLLIER: Given that, I would ask that it is stood over

until next Monday because I believe that also, as I

said, the difficulty in obtaining information has

arisen and hopefully by next Monday I may well have

heard back from the detective concerned and be able

to produce more documentation to the Court.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, it will save you the necessity then

to file the same documents over again.

MRS COLLIER: Yes, I am terribly sorry about that affidavit,

I did not notice it until I got home. Thank you.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, thank you, Mr and Mrs Collier.

Mr Collier, do you want to say anything in relation to the matter or are you content to adopt your wife's arguments?

MR COLLIER:  I accept what has been said before the Court,

Your Honour.	One thing I would request, if it is
in the realms of the High Court to grant it:	we

would want to issue a subpoena on the Sheriff's

Office of New South Wales in relation to the records of Mr Walter Bare for use in the

proceedings next week.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, you will have to make your application to

the Registry in the usual way and they will deal

with that.

MR COLLIER:	The reason I have said that, Your Honour, is that previously, especially in the Federal Court,
when it requires subpoenas have had to go before a
registrar or normally before a judge to get
permission of that court before the subpoena would
actually be issued.  I did not know whether that
was the same procedure in the High Court or not.
HIS HONOUR:	Order 37 deals with the question of subpoenas

in the High Court.	You might look at that
situation.

The order that I propose to make in this

matter is that the summons dated 19 July 1991 be

stood over until 10.15 am on Monday next, 29 July

1991.

MRS COLLIER:	Your Honour, I would just ask, while you are here - I do not know whether it is you or
Mr Mccusker I have to ask - in the application we
did put down a number of exhibits .. Is it more

Collier 14 22/7/91

convenient that we drop them at the Court prior to

Monday or what?

HIS HONOUR: Well, since it is unlikely I will be dealing

with the matter, I think you should take the matter

up with the Registrar.

MRS COLLIER:  Okay, fine, thanks. I was not sure, thank

you.

AT 10.58 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL MONDAY, 29 JULY 1991

Collier 15 22/7/91