Edwards v David Brown Gear Industries

[2002] HCATrans 40

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S84 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

GRAHAM EDWARDS

Applicant

and

DAVID BROWN GEAR INDUSTRIES LIMITED

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 19 FEBRUARY 2002, AT 2.32 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.A. STANTON:   I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Hickson Wisewoulds)

KIRBY J:   In these proceedings I participated in a matter in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales which gave a decision on 11 September 1995 concerning Mr Edwards ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Is the applicant present in Court?  Is Mr Edwards present in Court?

MR STANTON:   No, your Honours.  It might be desirable if the matter was called.

GAUDRON J:   Yes.  Would you call the applicant, please.

THE COURT OFFICER:   No response, your Honour.

KIRBY J:   I resume saying that I participated in the case in the Court of Appeal affecting Mr Edwards but as I have studied the transcript of the decision of that court, and it concerned other parts of his body than the parts that are involved in this case, I see no reason why I should not participate in these proceedings.

GAUDRON J:   Mr Stanton, I presume you urge that we should proceed with the matter?

MR STANTON:   Yes, your Honour.

GAUDRON J:   Could I inquire of the Deputy Registrar whether she has had any communication from Mr Edwards relating to this matter.

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:   Your Honour, the Registry has been advised by Mr Edwards that he does not intend to make oral submissions.  He is aware that the matter is listed today.

GAUDRON J:   Thank you.

In this matter the applicant, who is unrepresented and who, so we are informed, is content to rely on his written submissions, seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.  That court correctly held that there is no appeal to that
court from factual findings made by the Compensation Court.  The findings which the applicant seeks to agitate are clearly findings of fact.  That being so, the decision of the Court of Appeal, that the appeal to that court be dismissed with costs, was plainly correctly.  Accordingly, special leave is refused with costs.

The Court will now adjourn until 5 March in Sydney.

AT 2.35 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED