Conomy v Maden

This matter came before the High Court of Australia, constituted by Keane and Edelman JJ, concerning applications for special leave to appeal and interlocutory applications made by Mr J.J. Conomy, who appeared in person. The respondent was not represented. Mr Conomy sought to amend his applications and requested adjournments for the preparation of written submissions, particularly in relation to alleged vexatious proceedings.

The primary legal issues before the Court were whether to grant Mr Conomy special leave to appeal, whether to permit his proposed amendments to the applications, and whether to grant his requests for adjournments to prepare further submissions. The Court was also required to consider applications concerning alleged vexatious proceedings.

Keane J indicated that the Court had reviewed Mr Conomy's filed materials and applications. Mr Conomy argued for the interlocutory applications to be determined first, citing the potential impact on the main application. He also sought to have his proposed amendments accepted, noting the absence of objection from the respondent. However, when seeking adjournments, Mr Conomy stated he had not had adequate preparation time, a submission the Court rejected, noting his history of applications since 2016. Edelman J clarified that the opportunity for 10-page written submissions was optional, not a requirement. Keane J ultimately refused the adjournment applications, stating the Court was not disposed to grant further time and that Mr Conomy had had ample opportunity to present his case.

The Court indicated it would consider all applications and deliver its decision in due course. Mr Conomy stated he could not make submissions in support of his special leave application due to lack of preparation. The Court then adjourned the proceedings.