Egan v Willis

[1998] HCATrans 253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S75 of 1997

B e t w e e n -

MICHAEL EGAN

Appellant

and

MAX WILLIS

First Respondent

WARREN CAMERON CAHILL

Second Respondent

For mention

GAUDRON J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 10 JULY 1998, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR L.S. KATZ, SC, Solicitor-General for the State of New South Wales:   If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. LEEMING, for the appellant, and today, also, for the Attorneys-General for South Australia, Victoria, and Western Australia.  (instructed by the Crown Solicitor for New South Wales; instructed by the Crown Solicitor for South Australia; instructed by the Victorian Government Solicitor, and instructed by the Crown Solicitor for Western Australia)

MR B.W. WALKER, SC:    May it please, your Honour, I appear with my learned friend, MR P.T. TAYLOR, for the respondents.  (instructed by Mallesons Stephen Jaques)

MR H.C. BURMESTER, QC, Acting Solicitor-General for the Commonwealth:   May it please the Court, I appear for the Attorney‑General for the Commonwealth, intervening.  (instructed by the Australian Government Solicitor)

MR KATZ:   Your Honour, perhaps I could begin by drawing attention to the existence of an affidavit of service of the notice which, I gather, is with the papers.  Rather than dealing with the content of it, I have tried to reduce to a table my present understanding of the desires of various parties and interveners.  At the time this document was prepared I had not had a chance to speak to my learned friend, Mr Walker, and, as expected, the respondents do wish to be heard on the matters in the notice as well.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  So, as best you know, none of the State Solicitors wish to be heard further, is that correct?  Heard or heard further?

MR KATZ:   No, your Honour, those for South Australia, Victoria - - -

HER HONOUR:   I see, yes, I need new glasses.  Thank you.

MR KATZ:   Your Honour, South Australia is already intervening but all three of those Attorneys do wish to be heard.

HER HONOUR:   Wish to be heard, yes, thank you. 

MR KATZ:   Yes.

HER HONOUR:   Are they content to have their submissions put in writing or do they wish to be heard orally?

MR KATZ:   I am instructed to say on behalf of the Western Australian Solicitor-General that he desires to be heard orally, but I have no instructions as to the position of the other two Attorneys.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, thank you.  Did you wish to - Mr Burmester.

MR BURMESTER:   Your Honour, just to emphasise we would also wish to be heard orally as well as in writing.

HER HONOUR:   Very well, thank you.  That leaves the respondents.  Do you wish to be heard orally?

MR WALKER:   Yes, may it please your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   And that is all there is to note today, is it?

MR WALKER:   Well, your Honour, would it be helpful to perhaps try and agree a timetable in terms of written submissions.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  The matter can, I understand, be heard in Canberra on 1 September.  When would the Attorneys-General be able to put their submissions in?

MR KATZ:   Speaking now, if I may, on behalf of the Attorney for Victoria.  The Solicitor-General for Victoria is overseas and will be overseas until the end of this month, so I am instructed to request that any written submissions by the Attorneys be due sometime after 30 July.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  If there is going to be oral argument, it would be an outline of submissions, more or less.  Well, 14 August, is that sufficient?

MR KATZ:   I would think so, your Honour, speaking for myself.

HER HONOUR:   For all Attorneys.  Would you be in a position to reply within 10 days of that?

MR WALKER:   Yes, your Honour. 

HER HONOUR:   That would take us to the 24th and if anything further needs to be put in, it can be put in in the following 7 days, or 5 days, perhaps.  Would that be sufficient?

MR KATZ:   If your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR:   Now, I take it there will be no difficulty about the matter completing in the one day that is going to be allowed for it?

MR KATZ:   Not from my point of view, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   Does that mean you are going first?

MR KATZ:   I should say to your Honour, your Honour recalls the formulation of the notice.  We would wish to be heard in-chief only on one aspect of the matter and that is the very last of the issues, the justiciability issue.  As to the others, we have said what we want to say in-chief.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.  The parties will, indeed, have to complete their argument on the first.  There is no possibility of the matter going over.  So, you will take that into account in the formulation of your submissions and the preparation of your argument.

Apart from certifying for the attendance of counsel, I do not think there is anything further to do, is there?

MR WALKER:   No, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   I will certify for the attendance of counsel today.  The Court will now adjourn.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED