Djukanovic v Southern Television Corporation Limited

[1988] HCATrans 12

IN THE HIGH COUR7 OF AUSTRA!..IA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No All of 1985

B e t w e e n -

SUZAJ.~NE DJUKANOVIC

Applicant

and

SOUT:~ERN 7ELEVISION CORPORATION

LIMIT:t:D

Respondent

Applic.s.tion for special leave

to a?peal

WILSON J
DAWSON J

GAUDRON J

Dj1.1kanovic

TRJ~\SCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON FRIDAY, 19 FEBRUA..~Y 1988, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the Eigh Court of Australia

A1T2 / 1 /MG 1 19/2/8S

WILSON J: Miss Diukanovic, you are appearing 1n person,

for the moment?

MISS S DJUKANOVIC:	That is correct, Your Honour.
WILSON J:	Yes, would you iust sit down a moment and let me

take the appearance from Mrs Nelson.

MS E.F. NELSON, QC: May it please the Court, I appear

for the respondent with my learned iunior,

MR J.G. WARD. (instructed by Ward Nolan & Co)

WILSON J: Yes, Ms Nelson. Miss D~ukanovic, we have had

the opportunity of reading the affidavits that

you have tendered, including the one that I think

was filed yesterday and we understand that you

would like to have an adiournment of the application

for special leave and we understand the reason

for it. I do not think you need say anything more

at this point until we have heard what Ms Nelson

has to say about it.

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  Can I tell you, Your Honour, my difficulties

in finding anybody is because this is too much of a hot cake. It goes back in the industrial

court before President Olsson who was - - -

WILSON J:  Yes, I think we have got the history from the

very full affidavits that you have provided us
with and I do not think it is necessary for you
to repeat it at this stage. If it becomes necessary

in the light of Ms Nelson's submissions, then we

would be glad to hear you.

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  Your Honour, can I ~ust say one thing then.

I ob.iect to Ms Nelson representing the workers'

compensation insurers in the first place, hecause

I see it as a conflict of interest. Now, she was

the chairman before the Legal Practitioners

Disciplinary Tribunal in regard to a matter which

a former solicitor who started the problem in the	I had laid unprofessional conduct charges against
first place. Now, she was the chairman in regard
to the matter - - -

WILSON J: Now, ~ust let me interrupt you. It does not appear

that any question of conflict of interest is material

at this point until we - - -

MISS DJUKANOVIC: It is actually, Your Honour, in my eyes

because that matter is interrelated to this matter

so, therefore, it is a conflict of interest.

WILSON J:  Excuse me, well that may be. We will hear what

Ms Nelson's attitude is to the application for

an adiournment. Would you care to - - -

AlT2/l/MG	2	MISS DJUKANOVIC 19/2/88
Diukanovic

MS NELSON:  May it please the Court, I am instructed to

oppose the application.	I give the Court a very
brief history of what has happened.	The applicant

was involved in a motor vehicle accident on

18 November 1980 which was a journey to or from

work. There was a common law claim brought in

respect of that and a consent judgment entered

in respect of that in December 1981. This appeal
does not relate to the common law action but it

relates to a judgment of Justice Olsson in the

industrial court related to a workers compensation

issue arising out of the same accident. That original

judgment was delivered on 4 May 1983. There was

an appeal from that to the Full Court of the fudustrial of the industrial court to the Full Court of the

supreme court and that court delivered its judgment

on 1 March 1985. The applicant caused to be lodged
a notice of motion to the High Court on

22 March 1985 and nothing further was done until

an application for special leave to appeal to this

Court was filed on 28 August 1987, which is more

than two years after the original notice of motion.

During that time, the applicant has had, according to the court file, several solicitors and counsel

acting on her behalf. I am instructed that in

addition to those appearing in the various judgments

and on the various files, there have been numerous

other legal practitioners employed by the applicant

in this State and in the State of Victoria who

do not appear on the file. Those are the matters

that I put in opposition to the present application.

WILSON J:  Yes. Ms Nelson, the fact remains that the withdrawal

of counsel within a week of the listed date for

hearing of the application, that is today, would,

on any objective view, supply some grounds for

an adjournment. Having regard to the history that

you have outlined, there may well come a time when

the respondents might see fit to file some formal

motion that would seek to bring the matter to a
head.	But so far as this present application is

concerned, there may well be no alternative but

to grant the application.

MS NELSON:  I appreciate that, if the Court pleases, but

if the application is to be granted, I would wish

to be heard on the question of costs and perhaps

other matters.

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  Your Honours, I object to any costs being

awarded because, after all, it is not my fault

that this matter has been dragged on for so long.

As I was trying to tell Your Honours - I am not

going to deny that I have had many legal

AlT2/2/MG	3	MS NELSON, QC	19/2/88
Djukanovic	MISS DJUKANOVIC

representatives in regard to this matter. My constant

problem was - and if you refer to my affidavit - - -

WILSON J:  Yes but, Miss Djukanovic, the question when it comes to

a question of costs - and you have anticipated my

indicating that the Court is prepared to grant

you an adjournment - - -

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  Yes, but I do not want costs to be awarded

against me -

WILSON J:	I appreciate that.
MISS DJUKANOVIC:	- - - because my problem is my solicitors

failed to commit themselves. They accepted

to handle this case and also what they did was

they sat on it. I had to prepare my own court

documents and have them typed up and I and my father

filed them in court and the leave to appeal books

in this matter was prepared by both my father and

I and two printing companies and they were filed

in court just before the closing time of the supreme

court - I mean, of the closing time of the High

Court.

WILSON J:	Now that is a matter between - - -
MISS DJUKANOVIC:	Now, I have had great difficulties with

solicitors. Nobody is prepared to tell the

Court the truth because of the great implications

in this matter. Now the three people who are very

responsible for this matter and who are very

responsible - - -

WILSON J: Miss Djukanovic, you must let me speak, please.

The question of whether or not an order should be made for the costs of today on the granting of an adjournment is not a question that involves

your relationship to your own solicitors. It is

a question of what is just to the respondents who

have been brought here to answer an application

for special leave to appeal and who are met then with an application for an adjournment which the

Court is disposed to grant.

MISS DJUKANOVIC: But, Your Honour,they are responsible for

misleading this Court. They are responsible for

me to be here in the High Court in the first place.

WILSON J:  Would you just let us hear Ms Nelson in her claim.

She has not yet asked for costs, Miss Djukanovic.

She is entitled to put an application and to advance

reasons for it and then you can be heard.

AlT2/3/MG	4	MISS DJUKANOVIC 19/2/88
Djukanovic

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  But what I was trying to say to Your Honour,

that the three people who are responsible for me

having to even be in this High Court are now in

possession of power and that is my main reason

why I am having difficulties in finding anybody
to represent me in this matter because nobody is
prepared to tell the Court the truth because of

these people who are in possession of power.

WILSON J: Let us hear what Ms Nelson has to say. Do you

apply for costs, Ms Nelson.

MS NELSON:  I do, may it please the Court. Counsel has been

briefed in this matter since last November and

it was only as late, I think, as last Friday that

there was an intimation, first of all, that the

applicant was applying to have the case taken out

of the list and then later this week that there

would be an application for an adjournment. So

I do seek the costs thrown away for the respondent.

WILSON J:	Yes, now, Miss Djukanovic.
MISS DJUKANOVIC:	Again, Your Honour, my difficulty is that

nobody is prepared to - they take on this case

then they do not commit themselves when they are

going to have the case heard. They fail to prepare

the amended documents and the affidavits and draft

notice of appeals, et cetera.	I have to prepare
them myself.	Always what I do is I keep on repeating

my instructions to my solicitors. I, in the end,

have to do their work and always what they do is

send me bills and I had to prepare my own leave

to appeal books because they almost jeopardize
this High Court matter because they failed to

prepare the appeal books and both my father and

I and two printing companies had to finalize the

preparation of the leave to appeal booksin this

matter. Now, this is my difficulty: I have not

denied that I have had a lot of legal representatives.

I have been from lawyer to lawyer in Adelaide trying
to get somebody to handle this case.	I have even

been interstate and encountered difficulties interstate

on account of the three people who are responsible

for this scandal and cover-up. They are the people

that represented Southern Television, the workers

compensation insurers and my own Queerrs Counsel.

Now, these three people are today in possession

of power and for that reason I am encountering

extreme difficulties in finding anybody to represent

me in regard to this matter. Now, I want Your

Honours to try and understand the situation which

I had to try to cope with. It has aggravated my

health. It has cost me an enormous lot financially

in regard to this matter.because always what I

keep getting is lawyers just sitting on my case.

AlT2/4/MG	5	MISS DJUKANOVIC 19/2/88
Djukanovic	MS NELSON, QC

I am repeating my instructions, they fail to carry

out instructions. I end up having to do their

work and they send me the bills. And again, I

obiect to Ms Nelson handling this case because

what happened in the local court was dragged into

in the industrial court and that is how they

complicated the matter. Now, if that had not been

dragged into the industrial court then Ms Nelson

probably would have been able to may be represent

the Workers compensation insurers. But because

she was the chairperson of the Legal Practitioners

Disciplinatry Tribunal hearing my charges against

a former solicitor which I will not name at this particular moment - because she was the chairman

and she threw that matter out of the court on account

that I requested for an adjournment because I still

had not obtained my common law file from that solicitor
and could not proceed with proceedings on account
of me not having that file and on account of me
not having legal representation and on account

of my health was rather poor at that stage and that matter is now subject to an appeal in the

supreme court. And again, I am in the same difficulties

of not being able to find anybody to represent

me in that matter also and so therefore I obiect
to Ms Nelson representating the Workers ~mp~nsation
insurers because that matter which was before her

in the tribunal is interrelated to this matter.

However, Mr Ward can represent the workers compensation

insurers, I do not see any conflict of interest

where he is concerned, but as far as Ms Nelson

is concerned, I object and I do expect her to resign

from handling this matter. And again, I would

like to bring Your Honours' attention to that -

Justice Bollen, he followed the same error which

the learned President of the industrial court had

made by al lowing a double counting and double deductions.

WILSON J:  I do not think we want to go into the errors that

have occurred in the handling of this before.

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  I .iust wanted to tell Your Honour, very

briefly, what it was about.

WILSON J: Yes. Well, you have said all this in the affidavits.

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  Have you had an opportunity to read my

affidavit - 2 November 1987.

WILSON J:  Yes, we have read them all. Yes and I think there

have been three or four, Miss Djukanovic, and we

have read them. I think you have done yourself

justice in what you have said in your opposition

to an order for costs and I do not anticipate that
there really is very much more that you could say

in that regard.

AlT2/5/MG	6	MISS DJUKANOVIC 19/2/88
Djukanovic

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  Well, can you at least not award costs

to either party until the finalization of this

matter and would you please, Your Honour, make

an order that I have anadjournment in regard to this

matter pending me tinding legal representation in this matter and also take into account that when I find legal representation my future legal

representatives will need time to get themselves

ready in regard to this matter and also to take

into account their availability to attend this

matter before the High Court of Australia.	Would
you do that, Your Honour, please?

WILSON J:  Thank you, I will confer with my colleagues and

we will announce our decision in a moment, thank

you. You may sit down.

The Court has resolved to grant

Miss Djukanovic's application for an adjournment and I might just indicate, without it forming part

of the order, that so as to assist Miss Diukanovic

in her expectations as to the course of proceedings,

would be that it would probably be convenient for

the matter to be determined finally when the Court
sits here in August .next. That gives

Miss Djukartovic a significant period of time in which to make a final effort to secure

representation. With respect to the question of

costs:  we are sorry, Miss Djukanovic, but the

relevant facts are that the matter was listed to

go ahead today as an application for special leave

to appeal. The necessity arose throught the withdrawal

of counsel for you to apply for an adjournment
about a week ago and the consequence is that the

respondents have been put to expense in respect

of which they are entitled to an order for costs.

MISS DJUKANOVIC:  But, Your Honour, they are the ones

that.misledthe Court in the first place.	They
proposed to only pay me $3020.13 in respect to
my lost income	from 18 November 1980 to
7 January 1983.	Now that is unjust.

WILSON J:	We are deciding only the question of an entitlement
to costs associated with the adjournment.
MISS DJUKANOVIC:	But, Your Honour, they are responsible

for this scandal.

WILSON J:  They are not responsible for the adjournment,

Miss Diukanovic. The order of the Court is that

the application for special leave be adjourned

and that the applicant pay the costs associated

with the adjournment of the respondents. That

concludes the matter, Miss Djukanovic.

AT 9.49 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

AlT2/6/MG	7	19/2/88
Diukanovic