Gamester Pty Limited & Anor v Rural Press Limited

[1991] HCATrans 263

~

~ ,~-~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S89 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

GAMESTER PTY LIMITED

First-named Applicant

BARBARA ANN CAMERON

Second-named Applicant

and

RURAL PRESS LIMITED, JOHN

LINDSAY PARKER and TIMOTHY ROY

STARKEY

Respondents

Application for variation of

orders

McHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON WEDNESDAY, 18 SEPTEMBER 1991, AT 10.17 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Gamester(4) 1 18/9/91

MR A.S. MARTIN: If Your Honour pleases, I appear for the

respondents. (instructed by Sly & Weigall)

MS B. CAMERON:  I appear for the applicants. (in person)

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Ms Cameron.
MS CAMERON:	I have got one problem first of all. I am

wondering if you could solve it. Galloway & Co have been acting as our address for service and

unfortunately we had somebody pick up a summons and

affidavit from them to give to Sly & Weigall and

they gave them two copies of the one summons and

left two copies of a different summons. I have

asked Mr Richardson if I could have back one of the

copies and he says that he only received one copy.

HIS HONOUR:	Which summons are we talking about.
MS CAMERON:	The one filed on the 13th, the one you were

going to address this morning.	I do not have a
copy of it.

HIS HONOUR:  What is it you are seeking to do?

MS CAMERON: First of all, if I could have a copy of the

summons or be allowed to see it, because I cannot

remember exactly what is in it.

MR MARTIN:	Your Honour, I am quite happy to make available to Ms Cameron my instructing solicitor's copy.
HIS HONOUR:	Thank you, Mr Martin.

Now before you proceed, there are a couple of

matters I want to raise with you.	I make orders on
4 September.	What has happened in relation to the

documents? Where are the original documents that

have been taken away from this Court?

MS CAMERON:  I have got a list here of the documents that

were taken and I have returned the exhibits to my

affidavit which were given to me. There were

orders, apparently - I did not see them, Mr Horler

took them. Mr Horler has gone overseas for a month

but I will be going to his chambers later on today

to see if I can get them.	But Mr Sainsbury has a
copy of .them.

HIS HONOUR:  What good are the copies? These are the

original documents of this Court which were given

to you. Now, this matter is becoming very serious

and a stage has been reached in these proceedings

when some action for contempt may have to be taken. other may have to be committed for contempt of

this Court.

Gamester(4) 2 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  Mr Horler has been helping us so I would be

very upset if that happened to him.	Those
documents have not come into my hands.	He has them

and he has gone overseas for a much needed holiday and he has been helping us as much as he can - - -

HIS HONOUR: The documents are the documents of the Court.

An undertaking was given by Mr Sainsbury in

relation to those documents and the originals have

not been returned to this Court and, indeed, it is

my understanding that one document, namely the

orders I made on 4 September, have not been

returned at all, either as a copy or in the

original.

MS CAMERON:  The orders of 4 September were not given to

Mr Sainsbury; they are not on the list. I can

understand your annoyance about it, and I am

awfully sorry.

HIS HONOUR:  There is no prospect of you, and probably any

other litigant, getting me to make an order or give

a direction that documents of this Court be given

out again. You were given an indulgence in this to

assist you and the result is that documents of this

Court are no longer available.

MS CAMERON:  I will make sure - I will do everything I

possibly can to recover them. I have been in the

country and I came to Sydney last night and

unfortunately I was not well enough to get the

exhibits to Mr Sainsbury, which I did this morning,

but I understand exactly - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Sainsbury is the one who, primarily, has to

answer for this.

MS CAMERON: Unfortunately Mr Horler took the orders and I

do not think Mr Sainsbury - I stand to be corrected
on this, but I do not think Mr Sainsbury has seen

the orders.

HIS HONOUR:  He has the responsibility for the documents.

The originals have not been returned to this Court

and I will draw the Registrar's attention to it and

it is a matter for him as to what action will be

taken in relation to the matter.

MS CAMERON:  I would just plead with you to understand that

these people are trying to help us, they are not being paid, and I am sure that the matter can be resolved. I am sure there is nothing careless; it

is just that Mr Horler was terribly busy before he

went away and it is something that has just been

overlooked. I would like to say that when I

received the bundle - the bulldog clip with the

exhibits to my affidavit - some pages were missing.

Gamester(4) 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  I notice you say that. Ms Cameron, sympathetic

as I have been to your plight, the fact is that

some statements and allegations that you make are

just simply not true. For example, in the

application book, you have left out from pages 363
to 376 saying that "ten pages are missing from

here", and yet the Federal Court transcript in the

very book shows that the numbers are consecutive,

340, 341, 342.

MS CAMERON:  No, this is what was missing. This is a letter

from the Federal Court in which they say that they

have amended and replaced pages of the transcript

and I put that in after those pages. I have now

managed to get a copy of it from the Court

Reporting Department.

HIS HONOUR:  What are we talking about? Do you still

maintain that any pages are missing?

MS CAMERON:  Yes. This is what the letter says:

This transcript of proceedings in the Federal

Court of Australia, No MG 521 of 1986, Barbara

Ann Cameron and Another v Rural Press and

Another -

That should be Gamester Pty Limited and Another -

heard before Mr Justice Pincus on

13 March 1990.

Page 318 of the transcript incorrectly bears the notation "Judgment delivered".

His Honour's orders have now been incorporated

into the judgment. Accordingly, please

substitute attached pages 317 to 326A for

pages 317 to 326 of the transcript in your

possession.

Now, those pages I had after - I had not unfortunately substituted them and I just had that

at the end of the - - -

HIS HONOUR:  They are not the pages that are referred to.

On the application book the Federal Court

transcript shows page 340. The next document shows

page 341 and at the back of it there is a notation

in your handwriting, "ten pages missing from here".

MS CAMERON:  Yes, here they are. These are they.

HIS HONOUR: Well, let me have a look at them.

MS CAMERON:  The court corrected its transcript and we were

asked to take those pages out and substitute them

with those, but I had not, unfortunately, done

that. I just slipped that in at the back of them.

Gamester(4)	4	18/9/91
HIS HONOUR:	These are not the 10 pages. These pages refer to pages 317 to page 326.	Your allegation is it
concerns - - -

MS CAMERON:  My memory was that there was about 10 and this

also is part of it too.

HIS HONOUR:  Your memory that it is about 10 is not good

enough. The fact is that you have put on a

document here with says "10 pages are missing from

here", and 10 pages are not missing between

pages 340 and 341 of the transcript.

MS CAMERON:  I am sorry. I did the best I could.

HIS HONOUR:  Your best, I am afraid, is not good enough.

MS CAMERON: This is also part of it. This was the judgment

that was incorporated in the transcript on

14 March.

HIS HONOUR:	I will hand these documents back to you. Whether you have complied with my orders is a
matter that may have to be debated on some other
occasion, but I draw your attention to it. I also
draw your attention to the fact that contrary to
the index of reference which was settled by the
Registrar and amended by me, you have added at
least one document, namely your affidavit of
11 September 1991.  Now, you had no right to add
that document to this application book.
MS CAMERON:	I am not sure what that one refers to.
HIS HONOUR:	You have got, "9. Affidavit of B.A. Cameron

dated 11/9/91 giving explanation for missing
evidence in application books and circumstances
affecting the application books", and it is a very

lengthy affidavit. Indeed, it seems to be exactly

the same affidavit that you have filed in support

of the present summons. It contains irrelevant

matter. It contains scandalous matter. You make

allegations against Mr Parker which have got
nothing to do with this summons today, which have

got nothing to do with this special leave

application and which consists of hearsay

statements that have been made to you, according to

you, in relation to that matter and, as a matter of

administrative practice, that affidavit will, no

doubt, be torn out of the book because it does not

comply with it.

MS CAMERON: That is what we wanted to ask you today. If we

have got this hearing of it, we were going to ask

if we could put these pages in and take that out,

if that affidavit was dealt with in the Court

today.

Gamester(4)	18/9/91
HIS HONOUR:	The application book has been settled and,

subject to what happens in today's summons, the

application book will be the book which will go

before the Court on 4 October. If you have any

additional material that you want to put before

that Court, then you will have to make application to the Judges who sit. It is the Registrar who is

given the power by the rules of this Court to

settle the contents of the book. He has done it.

If you have complied with it, then you have

complied with it. If you have not complied with

it, then you will have to pay the consequences.

MS CAMERON:  We did the best we could with the problem we

had with the documents.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MS CAMERON:	These documents that have not been included are

particularly important documents and I asked the

lass at the counter this morning if I could

paste - I have now got a copy of page 4, I think it

is, that is missing from the judgment and I asked

her if I could paste that in on top of the blank

page and put toese in where I put the notation

which said there were 10 pages. We were advised to

put that affidavit in the book in case we could not

get a hearing of the summons, which we did get a

hearing of, and we were going to ask if we could

remove them.

HIS HONOUR:  You keep saying you were advised. You rarely,

if ever, identify your advisor, but the advisor,

whoever that person was, was quite wrong. Now,

Ms Cameron, no special leave application to my

knowledge in recent years has taken up as much of

the time of the Court as your application. It has

been before the Court on, I think, half a dozen

occasions now.

MS CAMERON:  There is a reason for that. The reason is that

if we could have time - we have got the cart before
the horse.	If we could have time to deal with the

legal aid matter first so that we could pay

somebody to do the job properly, then we would not

have to come back because we have got an impossible

situation where I am trying to run the Federal

Court matter as well as this. I am not well. The

situation is impossible, and we have a mess in both

courts.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MS CAMERON:	I am not doing either of them properly. If we

had	some legal aid, or had some time to try	and get
the	thing properly addressed - Mr Sainsbury	showed
the	application books to a QC the other day	who is

Gamester(4) 6 18/9/91

considering taking Mr Horler's place and he took

one look at them and said, "I just don't have time

to read all that".

HIS HONOUR:  You will have two weeks unless I make some

other order today. Ms Cameron, the fact of the

matter is, you had your original legal aid revoked

as long ago as 1987.	You have made numerous
applications for legal aid, all unsuccessful.	You
are a highly intelligent woman but it is quite
obvious to me that you are so obsessed with this

litigation that you are having some trouble in

distinguishing reality from fantasy. It must be

perfectly apparent to you that you are not going to

get legal aid from any of these bodies.

MS CAMERON:	That would be the case if we do not have the opportunity to do something about it.
HIS HONOUR:	You have had the opportunity for many, many

months.

MS CAMERON:  No, because during those months I have had to

work away at the - this High Court matter has not

stopped. We were given a break last year in the

Federal Court and in the High Court but then the

respondents immediately activated the High Court

and I could not go to hospital. I have not yet

been able to go to hospital to have urgent surgery

and I have not had - this is the problem we have

got; the case running in two courts, and I have not

had the time. Now, I believe that any person - and

I am quite happy to name the advisors - who has

examined the documents and this material say that

you are right, it is, indeed, scandalous about our

legal aid situation and the matter should be

addressed.

HIS HONOUR:

I have not said it is scandalous about your

legal aid application at all.

MS CAMERON:	I am sorry.
HIS HONOUR:	I said that there is scandalous material in

that affidavit.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, well, indeed, it is scandalous and, we

say, the·scandal is that the legal aid matter

cannot be addressed. I read through this affidavit

last night which includes some of the letters to

the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission. It is

clear that they are not addressing the issue of our

legal aid.	We write them letters and they do not
reply.

HIS HONOUR:  That is the whole point. The point is that you

have no application on foot.

Gamester(4) 7 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  No; the point is that we say there has not been

a proper appeal. We have asked them to provide us

with information. We have been advised to make a submission to Mr Justice Grove to have the matter properly addressed in accordance with the rules

they must follow and we do not get any reply to the

letter, and because I am trying to run two major

court cases I do not get time to really pursue it.

HIS HONOUR:	Ms Cameron, it is obvious that the legal aid regards your matter as having been disposed of, and
there are provisions in the Act which make their decision final.
MS CAMERON:	I do not know if you have read the letters

attached to this - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I read the letters that were attached on

20 June when counsel appeared on that occasion. He

did not tender the documents because it was obvious

that I was not going to make any order for

confidentiality of them. He formed a view about

them and, as I said, I think at page 45 of the

transcript of 20 June, there was no legal aid

application on foot.

MS CAMERON:  Could I be given the opportunity to point out

to you that we think there is in the documents?

HIS HONOUR:  The first thing is: this is an application to

revoke certain orders I made. The authorities are

plain that that is an indulgence. This case has
been heard and I do not know what it is that you

are seeking to set aside. Do you want to set aside

the whole of the orders of 20 June?

MS CAMERON:  What we would like is - Mr Horler has gone

overseas. Mr John Coombs, QC, has said he will do

our application to the High Court but he cannot do

it on 4 October, and what we would like is to have

an opportunity to have a solicitor go through those

books. We feel that the index should be settled in our presence. If I could just give you an example. We asked in our affidavit if we could put on the

first 15 pages of this affidavit and the index said

that we should put on the whole of it which is

another four inches of exhibits.	Now, we did not
put the exhibits in.

HIS HONOUR:  That is a matter for you. The Deputy Registrar

has settled the index.	He is given the power by
the rules.

MS CAMERON:  We have not complied with it. Had we complied

with it, we would have had eight and a half inches

of papers. Now, we have left off five inches of

Gamester(4) 18/9/91

that affidavit which I do not know if you have

realized that.

HIS HONOUR:  I have not read these appeal books except in a

very cursory way.

MS CAMERON:  We asked to include the transcript for 12, 13

and 14 May, and the index said that we could not

put in any of it and you amended that and said we could put it in for 12 May, which is one-third of

the story. We have included 13 and 14 May, but we

did not have all of the transcript and that is the

material I have asked you this morning if we could

include.

HIS HONOUR:  As far as I am concerned the index is settled.

Now, we will proceed with your summons and the

affidavit in support of it and the matter will be

done regularly. Now, you begin - - -

MS CAMERON:  Could I take the opportunity to point out to

you that it is very simple where we say there has

not been an appeal in accordance with the rule.	I
mean, I think there are two issues.	The legal aid

people say they have dealt with our legal

aid - that is one thing, but if they have not dealt

with it in accordance with their responsibility in

the rules, that is another matter and they ought

not to get away with it.

HIS HONOUR:  That may be, but the Act makes certain

provisions about their decision and so far as they are concerned the matter is disposed of. At best, Ms Cameron, it is purely a discretionary matter.

MS CAMERON:  No, it is not, and that is what I would like

to - - -

HIS HONOUR:  It is a discretionary matter as far as I am

concerned as to whether I would adjourn these
proceedings.	What you are seeking to do is to

rerun the hearing of 20 June.

MS CAMERON: Well, there is just something in these letters

which - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Do not worry about what is in those letters.

You have to make out a case why I should allow you

to reopen matters that were concluded by my orders

on 20 June and as have been subsequently amended.

MS CAMERON: Well, there are two main points, and they both

relate to legal aid. One is that one officer,

Ms Jude, of the legal aid association, wrote to us

and said that we should appeal, she sent us a form

to fill in, she said we had 28 days to do it.	We
told her that we would do that, we were getting

Gamester(4) 9 18/9/91

material together, which she had returned to us and

not considered.

HIS HONOUR: This is not new material. That material was in

the documents that I read before, which Mr Newlinds

had, and which he decided not to tender because he
had drawn a certain conclusion about it and because
apparently on your instructions you had asked that

they be kept confidential, and I was not prepared

to allow them to be confidential if they were going

to be tendered in evidence.	So he withdrew the
tender.

MS CAMERON: Well, we were given 28 days to lodge our appeal

with the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission.

Now, after a week they wrote us a letter - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You are disregarding what I have said to you.

You have to show why I should reopen the matter.

At the moment there is no reason why I should

reopen the matter.

MS CAMERON:  I am sorry. I am trying to explain that -

HIS HONOUR:  You are just going over material that was

before me on the previous occasion.

MS CAMERON: Well, I have read the transcript of that

occasion and it seems to me that attention was not

drawn to these letters which show that we were

given a month to put on an appeal to the Legal Aid

Commission and then within a week we received a letter from them - a week later we received a

letter from them saying that they had considered

our appeal, and we had not lodged our appeal.

HIS HONOUR:  I recollect that, but the view was taken by the

counsel who appeared for you, Mr Newlinds, that

there was nothing on foot and that the decision of

the Legal Aid Commission was correct, and I, having

on that day, expressed the view which is, I think,	read those documents myself during the adjournment	at page 45 of the transcript, that prima facie that
seemed to me to be correct.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but their decision being final and the

fact that they have not - is one thing, but the fact that they did not comply with the rules re

appeal is. a different matter.

HIS HONOUR:  Look, this is just an opportunity to reargue a

matter that has already been reargued, and you are

getting nowhere.

MS CAMERON: Well, in regard to the Federal Attorney-

General's Department legal aid, we have written letters to the Honourable Mr Duffy and they have

Gamester(4) 10 18/9/91

been answered by Mr Wheeler, or Mr Wheeler's

department, saying that there is nothing to

complain about in his conduct. To go back to the

Legal Aid Commission, we have sent an application

asking for legal aid to handle the settlement of

this matter and to handle this matter, and we have

not had a reply. Now, they are obligated to reply

to our correspondence and we have been told to take

the matter up with Mr Justice Grove and we might

get somewhere, because Mr Wheeler is saying to

them, "Don't go against his decision in regard to

legal aid".	Now, why should we suffer an injustice
because -

HIS HONOUR:  Well, you say it is an injustice. You make

this allegation. But I adjourned the proceedings

MS CAMERON: Well, it is in the correspondence - - -

HIS HONOUR:  No, it is not. noticed on the index of reference, document F, It is like the statement I

where you say, "Letter from Mr Horton, solicitor

for the respondents, in which he states that the

respondents refuse to discover the documents

ordered by His Honour even if we demonstrated

relevance". Now, I read that letter. It says no

such thing.

MS CAMERON: If I could take you to the letter I can - - -

HIS HONOUR: I have read the letter, I read it as recently

as this morning, and it does not bear that

statement out. It is like the statement you made

the very first day this matter came before me, when

I said to you that apparently legal aid had been

withdrawn on the advice of Mr Nigel Cotman; you

said that you had never heard such a thing, it was

a new one on you. And yet an affidavit of

Mr Wheeler was an annexure to your affidavit in

this special leave application.

MS CAMERON:  But the affidavit did not say that the advice

had been withdrawn on the advice of Mr Cotman.

HIS HONOUR:  You said you had never heard of it and it did

say that.

MS CAMERON: Well, it is factually not correct.

HIS HONOUR:  That is what you say, but you said the point is

- - -

MS CAMERON:	He did not give an opinion.
HIS HONOUR:	- - - that you had never heard of such a thing.

Now, obviously you had heard of it and you were

Gamester(4) 11 18/9/91

telling me an untruth or you had forgotten all

about it.

MS CAMERON:  No, I had not heard of it.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it was an annexure to an affidavit that

you filed.

MS CAMERON: Well, let us find the annexure, because it is

factually just not correct.

HIS HONOUR:  Whether it is factually correct or not is

irrelevant. You said you had never heard of it.

MS CAMERON: Well, I have not heard of it, other than in

this Court.

HIS HONOUR:  No. It was in a document which - it was

annexed to your own affidavit.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but that document said that Mr Wheeler

withdrew the legal aid on result of a telephone

call from Mr Renwick, and Mr Renwick said in his

telephone call that Mr Cotman had - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, and you told me that you had never heard

of Mr Cotman giving that advice.

MS CAMERON: Exactly, because he did not give that advice.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well, you said you had never heard of it;

it was a new one on you. Then you said - - -

MS CAMERON:  I hold to that, because he did not give that

advice.

HIS HONOUR:  It is apparent to me that it is impossible to

reason with you, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON: That is why we need legal aid.

HIS HONOUR:  Would you please move on to your - do you move

on the summons which is filed in these proceedings?

MS CAMERON: It is just wrong. It makes a mockery of the

justice system to have litigants in person before

the Court, in my view, because it is not possible
to divorce emotional aspects from the case and we

end up arguing about the way things are expressed.

I express them emotionally, but I say that the

factuality of them is not -

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, I have said to you before, I

admire - if I have not said it in terms I have said

it in effect - the way you have tried to handle

this matter, but the stage has been reached where

something has to be done and - - -

Gamester(4) 12 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  I could not agree more but I think that

we

HIS HONOUR:  - - - and I have given you every latitude. The

business of this Court and the time of the Judges
of this Court cannot be taken up in respect of this

matter just being allowed to drag on. It has to

come to a head.

MS CAMERON:  I agree with you entirely, but if we could get

a month, say, to approach Mr Justice Grove to try

and get access to Mr Duffy - - -

HIS HONOUR:	You have had many months.
MS CAMERON:	No, I have had months when I have been working on the Federal Court matter, or I have been sick.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you must have given priority to that.

But I adjourned these proceedings - I gave you a

three month adjournment, from February to May, so

that the whole question of legal aid would be

finalized.	Come 23 May, I think it was, I am no
further advanced.	Come 20 June, I am no further
advanced.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but I just do not understand and I frankly

just have difficulty believing that anyone can

possibly conceive that I could handle two major

court cases on my own, without any money, living in

the country, ill. I cannot do it. It is an

impossibility, and impossibilities preclude

justice. Now, I am behind with the Federal Court,

I have not filed affidavits which were due last week. The whole thing is impossible. If I had

time to address the legal aid matter and we could

get legal aid and be properly represented - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Then perhaps you should have addressed the

legal aid much earlier, but the point is you have

been - - -

MS CAMERON:	I have been trying.
HIS HONOUR:	- - - seeking legal aid since some time last

year, if my recollection is correct.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, that is right, and the longer it goes on,

the more,evidence is coming to hand the fact that
the matter should be examined because something

smelly is going on.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is the allegation that you make.

MS CAMERON: Well, it is a matter of evidence. I mean, we

wrote - - -

Gamester(4) 13 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  It is not a matter of evidence at all.

MS CAMERON: Well, it is, because we made an application to

the Legal Aid Commission and they ignore it. We

have applied - the simplest example is that we have

applied for legal aid to handle the settlement
matter; we have had no reply. If anyone else

applied for legal aid to handle something as cut

and dried as our settlement, they would at least

get a reply to their letter. We are entitled to

have our applications to the Legal Aid Commission

considered, the same way as everybody else.

HIS HONOUR:  They say they have considered it. Now, we are

just going over the same ground.

MS CAMERON:	I still would like to draw your attention to that letter which clearly says - one letter says,
"You've got a month to put on an appeal". A week
later we get a letter which says, "We've dealt with
your appeal".

HIS HONOUR:  I saw those letters on the last occasion. Your

problem is, this whole question of the legal aid

was - you asked for this special leave application

to be stayed in your summons of 7 February because

of legal aid matters.	I have dealt with that and
you have lost on that issue.	Now, unless you can

put something forward to me why I should reopen

that matter, bearing in mind that courts regard it

as an indulgence and not a matter of right to allow

somebody to open, I do not propose to allow those

matters to be reopened.

MS CAMERON: Yes, thank you. Well, that is what I am trying

to do.	I am sorry if I am not doing it very well,
but that is what I am trying to do.	I am trying to

say, I am trying to point out to you - and

Mr Graeme Molloy, who is a very competent solicitor

and knows about legal aid, says we have not had a

proper appeal and we should complain to the

authorities. But we do not get time to do it.

HIS HONOUR:  You have had since last year, certainly at least six months ago. When was the last letter

that you rely on? It was in March or something,

was it not, if I recollect correctly?

MS CAMERON:  No, he has written since then, but I know that

I have not had time to do anything about it because
I have been trying to work on the Federal Court

matter.

HIS HONOUR: Well, if you have given priority to the Federal

Court matter, that is your choice.

MS CAMERON:  No, but it would have been dismissed.

Gamester(4) 14 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR: Well, whether it would have been dismissed or

not, it is still your choice. You have litigation

on foot all over the place, apparently. You have

at least two matters running in this Court at the

present time.	You have a Federal Court matter
running.

MS CAMERON:  The whole thing is a great morass of mess

because we have put the cart before the horse; the

cases have been galloping on and the legal aid

matter has not been addressed.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, whose fault is that?

MS CAMERON: Well, we say it is the Court's because the

Court has not addressed the issue of our legal aid,

the Court has not yet heard our evidence about the

taking back of our legal aid.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, if you are referring to that

correspondence, I saw that correspondence that

Mr Newlinds had, and my view is that you do not

have anything on foot, having regard to the terms

of the correspondence and having regard to the

terms of the Act. And even if I came to the view

that you did have something on, it is a

discretionary matter. The business of this Court

is not going to be postponed while applicants make

applications for legal aid which, according to

them, are not properly considered. What are we

year after next or some - - -

supposed to do? What is this Court supposed to do?

MS CAMERON:	No, if we could just - - -
HIS HONOUR:	- - - other time in the future?
MS CAMERON:	No.  There is nothing wrong with the Court

rules, if we could just follow them, and my comment

I said before - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, one thing is certain. You have not

followed the Court rules. You did not put on an

affidavit complying with Order 69A rule 4 for over

a year.

MS CAMERON:	I learn the Court rules after the event is over because I am not a lawyer. But my comment before,
I was referring to Mr Justice Lockhart, who did not
hear our evidence in regard to the legal aid. The
point about the New South Wales Legal Aid
Commission is that the point that we are arguing is
not a discretionary matter.  We are saying that we
are entitled to an appeal.  We have a letter from
them which sets out how we are to go about it, and
a week later, in total ignorance of that right,

Gamester(4) 15 18/9/91

they wrote saying that they had addressed the

appeal. Now, the legal aid - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I have never said that it is a discretionary

matter as far as they are concerned; I said it is a

discretionary matter as far as I am concerned as to

whether I take into account your claim that you

have an application for legal aid on foot in

determining whether or not you should get an adjournment of the special leave application.

MS CAMERON: Well, I think it is section 57 of the Legal Aid

Commission Act which says, "where an appeal is

pending there is an automatic stay". Now, if I

could just turn up this letter it says in one of

the letters here - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I am well aware of section 57, and I have

expressed the view to you it has got no application

to this Court, for a number of reasons. One is

that the word "court" in that Act only refers to a

New South Wales court and not the High Court or any

Federal Court but, in any event, it is a question of whether, if it did intend to deal with the High

Court, it could stay proceedings in the High Court.

MS CAMERON: Well, I understand from the Judiciary Act and

the Commonwealth Acts Interpretation Act, that

there is a lacuna in regard to Federal legislation.

HIS HONOUR:  I know what you have said about that. is that there is no application on foot. The fact

It may be

wrong, they may have made a wrong decision - - -

MS CAMERON:  No, but there is. We have written asking for

legal aid to handle the settlement and to handle

this matter.

HIS HONOUR:  But the settlement has got nothing to do with

this.

MS CAMERON:  And also for this matter, that I am here

standing here for now, today.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I have not seen any specific evidence

about this matter, for a start. That is another

factor.

MS CAMERON: Well, I think the letter is in the back of

here, attached to this affidavit, or one of them.

I am told that if I can just get time to get a

submission to Mr Justice Grove, that he will look

into this and ask them why we did not get an

adjournment, ask them why they are not addressing

our application.

Gamester(4) 16 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, that may or may not be the case.

The fact is that - - -

MS CAMERON:	There is something wrong if it is not.
HIS HONOUR:	It may be that something is wrong with your

case.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, what is wrong is that Mr Wheeler is saying

to them, "Don't give her legal aid because I've

taken it away and if you do it will -

HIS HONOUR: Well, you make these allegations.

MS CAMERON: Well, Ms Jude said that. Now, we would like to

subpoena Ms Jude.	We want her here to give
evidence.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. I gave you opportunities to do all these

things in February last year.

MS CAMERON:  And we were told we could not issue subpoenas

in this Court.

HIS HONOUR:  You have always got a ready retort, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON: Well, there is correspondence confirming it.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, so far as I am concerned the matter

has been dealt with - - -

MS CAMERON:	I will just find this letter about all these - I think it goes back to the original letter. Yes, the letter dated 27 April mentions it; that is
towards the back of that affidavit.  But there is
another letter.  I have not got all of these
letters because it is another thing I just have not had time to follow up, and I think I mentioned that
in the affidavit, that I did not have them all.

We have made one simple request to the Court,

that is that we would like our evidence examined.	I think for the last eight years, many times, and
Now, if our evidence is examined and I am told I am
wrong, then that is it, that is the end of it. But we would like our evidence examined. We would like
somebody to examine the conduct of Mr Wheeler, from
which all of this stems. Now, we just do not feel
that that is asking a lot.

HIS HONOUR:  Weli', it has got to be done according to law,

Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON:	Yes. Well, that is what we would like.
HIS HONOUR:	And you failed in front of Justice Lockhart,

you failed in front of Justice Gaudron, and you

Gamester(4) 17 18/9/91

have an appeal on in front of the Full High Court

now. That bench will deal with your application.

MS CAMERON:	But we have got a lot of hearings and - - -
HIS HONOUR:	And that has nothing whatever to do with this

particular application.

MS CAMERON:  No, what I am saying is that we would like the

Court to look at our evidence, which

Mr Justice Lockhart did not do, but we want to get

our evidence to Mr Justice Grove, that we have -

two things: one, that we have not had a proper

appeal, and two, that we have made applications and

not received a reply to our letters.	Now, all of
this correspondence - - -

HIS HONOUR:  It is fairly obvious reading the correspondence

and the failure to reply is that the Legal Aid

Commission has just taken the view that the matter

is over as far as they are concerned.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but we want that examined by an authority to properly determine that. I mean, why have we

not received - we are entitled to have a reply to

our application. That is pretty fundamental. We

are entitled to have an appeal. Now, the question

is, why? It is wrong if they can just not do those

two things and we suffer as a consequence.

HIS HONOUR:	They have said they have dealt with the matter.
MS CAMERON:	No, they have not -
HIS HONOUR:	As far as I am concerned you have no

application on foot and, indeed, I am not going to

even allow you to go into this matter because the

matter has already been dealt with.

MS CAMERON:  But there is no letter from them saying that

they have dealt with our application for this and the settlement; there is just no reply. There is nothing.

HIS HONOUR:  The settlement has nothing to do with this

particular application.

MS CAMERON:  The two applications were made together and we

just simply - there is no letter saying they have

dealt with it. We have no reply.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you have to show some ground for

reopening the orders that I originally made on

20 June and so far you have done nothing which

would persuade me to reopen the matter.

Gamester(4) 18 18/9/91

MS CAMERON: Well, if I could try again. We have done

everything - we are slow, we are behind, but we

have taken every step that we have been advised to

take and now, a few yards from the winning post, we

are going to be turfed out.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, you are not being turfed out. Your

application books are on, the matter is listed for

hearing on 4 October.

MS CAMERON:	I am referring to the legal aid.
HIS HONOUR:	The legal aid is another matter altogether.
MS CAMERON:	No, I say that the legal aid is the first step in regard to the - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You say it. The question is, should you be

allowed to reopen a matter which was, in effect,

finalized on 20 June 1991.

MS CAMERON: Well, we have got appeal books which - here the

most important evidence is sitting on the table not

included. There are inches of material that is

irrelevant. We have shown them to a very good QC

who has kindly said he will do it without payment, and Mr Tebbutt has said that he will instruct him, and he has said, "Well, where do I get the time to

read all of that?" We need money. Times are very

hard. People just cannot afford to be as

benevolent as they might otherwise be. We need

money to pay somebody to do the job properly.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, the matter is listed for hearing on

4 October.

MS CAMERON:  The two QCs that we have approached are not

available on 4 October.

HIS HONOUR:  You will have to take some other steps. Now,

you have taken up the Court's time this morning.

Have you got anything further to say in relation to

orders 1 to 4?

MS CAMERON: If I could just read them, please, to refresh

my memory.

The only other thing I would like to say in

regard to getting access to Mr Duffy, we have got

somebody who said that they will write to him and

enclose the replies that we have received from

Mr Wheeler to our letters to him, and they feel

confident that the letter will get through to

Mr Duffy.

I mean, we have got an extraordinary

situation. It is just simply extraordinary that

Gamester(4) 19 18/9/91

our legal aid has been taken back on the basis of

the same opinions upon which it was given, and

Mr Wheeler has taken our legal aid back saying,

"I'm taking it back because I've changed my mind
about your opinions".

There has been a rearrangement of this point to say that the dispute with the legal aid was as

to whether or not we should get further legal aid -
that is not the dispute. The dispute is whether or

not we should be given back the legal aid which we were given. It was taken back before it was used,

before it was fully utilized. If that is the state

of our justice system, something is terribly wrong.

I have drawn this comparison before. It is the

same sort of situation that somebody obtains a

permit from a council to build a house and when the

house is half-built the council comes along and

says, "I'm sorry. I'm taking the permit back. Too

bad about your half-built house". It is just

simply wrong. It is wrong every way you look at

it, and terrible injustice has resulted.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Ms Cameron, you have had since 1987 to

reverse that situation.

MS CAMERON: 

Yes, we have to wait approximately a year for

hearings in the Federal Court and then - there is
another thing - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

But you waited three years before you made any

move against it.

MS CAMERON: No, we did not - I am sorry. Immediately we

applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who

wrote to us - there is a letter in this affidavit

in which they say that they do not think they have

jurisdiction and they told us to go to the Federal

Court under the Administrative Decisions (Judicial

Review) Act, which we did, and they told us to go
back to them if we did not get anywhere.	Now, we

have always felt that the Administrative Appeals

Tribunal was the place we should have been in the first place and apparently there has been a case since this letter was written which now determines

that they do have jurisdiction under the Trade

Practices Act, and also I notice that they list in

their letter to us - and it is in this

affidavit. - that in the Trade Practices Act of 1975

they have jurisdiction in regard to the Trade

Practices Act as amended. Section 170 was not

amended in that round of amendments and that is

something else that I have found out recently

because I did not have time to address it at the

time, I did not know. If you are untrained in law

you do not know what might be relevant. It is only

when the consequences create a problem that the

Gamester(4) 20 18/9/91

lack of knowledge becomes apparent. I feel there

is scope there to go back to the Administrative

Appeals Tribunal and say, "Look, can you now

address it?".

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, one matter that you have really got

to come to grips with is that at the moment you

have no case under the Trade Practices Act.	I
notice in your affidavit you were advised by
somebody that you still have an application on

foot. That is incorrect advice, assuming it was

given to you. Your application is dismissed. It

is finished. You have no action under the Trade

Practices Act. All you have on foot is an application in this Court.

As I said in my judgment of 20 June, I do not see what the practical utility of this other action

you have got before the Full High Court is.	Even
if Justice Gaudron was wrong, even if

Mr Justice Lockhart was wrong, the fact is that

there is nothing to order legal aid about. You

just do not have an action. It is gone. It has

disappeared in the judgment against you and until

you set aside the judgment - which is the subject

of this special leave application - there is

nothing to give legal aid for.

MS CAMERON:	The terms of the legal aid grant - I have not got it in front of me but after reading it we were
advised that it could be construed from the wording
of it that it would be to deal with the case until it was finished in the court and that while there
was an appeal -

HIS HONOUR: Well, it is finished.

MS CAMERON:  Our advice was that while there is an appeal

outstanding it is not finished.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well you have no appeal. A special leave

application is not an appeal.

MS CAMERON:  I understand what you are saying about that,

but we still have not yet finished with the

application to dismiss the defence for discovery,

and perhaps that is what they meant, because one of

the things to be dealt with in their summons today

is in regard to that.

HIS HONOUR: But, Ms Cameron, again that is finished, that

issue. It is gone. It is not an issue. You have

lost your action.

MS CAMERON:  No, we have not, because we have right of

appeal from a single Judge of the High Court on a

prerogative writ.

Gamester(4) 21 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  No, you have lost your action in the Trade

Practices case.

MS CAMERON:  We have not lost the action to dismiss the

defence.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, you have. That goes with your other

action. I know you appealed to the Full Federal

Court about it, but the fact is that once your

action was dismissed, everything went with it.	You
have got no rights in relation to defences or
anything else. You just do not have a case.	It
has gone.

MS CAMERON:  But, if it is found that the dismissal of it

was wrong, then we do.

HIS HONOUR:	If you can persuade the Court on 4 October that Justice Pincus was in error in dismissing your
application for want of prosecution and for any other reason and the judgment is set aside in that matter, then these other matters may be opened up again, but at the moment that is the fatal flaw in
everything that you are doing.  Your action is
gone.
MS CAMERON:	The thing that keeps the law going is that

people have different views.

HIS HONOUR:  I have told you. I have mentioned it in

judgments, and it is not for me to give you legal

advice - - -

MS CAMERON:  I do not know either. I am just trying to do

the best I can.

HIS HONOUR:	I understand that.
MS CAMERON:	Our problem is that we are getting advice from

several people who are contributing a certain

amount without payment which - I mean we are very,

very grateful indeed, but the problem is that we do

not have one person with total conduct of the case

to really investigate matters and that is a

problem.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes.

MS CAMERON: This comment is irrelevant; I know it is

irrelevant, but it is something that distresses me

considerably that if we are faced with having to

pay Rural Press' costs of years and years of wilful

delay, we can do that; we can do it very easily by

permitting a book to be published about this case.

We are told by the publishers that it would have

international interest because of what Australia is

doing with its appeal system after the Privy

Gamester(4) 22 18/9/91

Council has gone. I do not want that to happen. I

want to go back to the country and live what is

left of my life quietly and peacefully.

HIS HONOUR:  I hear what you say. Ms Cameron, like

Justice Pincus I find you a very appealing person,

I am sympathetic to your plight - - -

MS CAMERON:	I question that, of Mr Justice Pincus.
HIS HONOUR:	- - - but I have done, I think, everything I

can possibly can to do justice to you but I cannot

overlook the fact that orders have been made, that
the matter is listed for hearing, that the other

side is brought along from time to time on these

summonses, and the matter has just got to be

disposed of.

MS CAMERON:  One thing that I want to speak very strongly

about is the mass of evidence that they have

wilfully delayed this case. Since 1984, the

directors of Rural Press and our company were

prepared to settle this matter for the same amount

of money that we are arguing about now. The

directors say they are anxious to settle. It is

Mr Parker who wants to keep this case going.	Money
is no option.

HIS HONOUR:  That may or may not be settling these other

matters that start - when does this other matter

start, on 30 September, is it, the settlement case?

MS CAMERON:  Yes. Now, if we cannot get somebody to appear

in the High Court on 4 October, nobody will turn up

because I will be in the Federal Court or in

hospital because I have collapsed. My doctor gives

me two days which seems to be as long as I last.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, well Ms Cameron, if there is any clash then you will have to seek an adjournment of the
Federal Court proceedings on that day.
MS CAMERON:	But we come up with the fact that I cannot act in the High Court.

HIS HONOUR: That is so, but it is always open to you to

approach the Judges who sit that day and make an

application that despite the rules they hear you.

Whether they will grant it is another matter

altogether.

MS CAMERON:  Assuming that they do, why should I - when I am

incapable both from the point of view of health and

lack of qualifications - attempt to do something

when we have legal aid?

HIS HONOUR:  But you have not got any legal aid.

Gamester(4) 23 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  We had a grant of legal aid which has been

taken away before it was utilized. We have legal

aid. The point about our legal aid situation is that no court, no person in authority, no one has

examined our evidence.	Mr Justice Lockhart did not
see it, no one has.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Justice Lockhart came to the view that the

that and you are presently part-heard before a Full Bench of this Court.

application before him was an abuse of process. respect of

MS CAMERON: If I could just put it this way. If there was

some reason why we should be chased out of the

Court as an alternative to addressing the matter of

our legal aid we would accept it, but I lay awake

in bed last night trying to think of the reason.	I
cannot think of the reason. These people enjoy

corning. Mr Parker has a lot of money. He wants to

spend it. He could have settled it.	It is quite
clear that they are not inconvenienced.	They are
suffering no hardship whatsoever.	What is the

reason why we cannot attend to this serious

problem? I receive calls constantly from people in

the country, from the Department of Primary

Industry, from the Department of Agriculture, "What

has happened to the court case?	We are sick of
Rural Press' monopolistic conduct.	I hope you win.
We want this case to be won.	We at least want
there to be a hearing".	I have got to go to
thousands of people and say, "I'm sorry.	We didn't
get a hearing".

HIS HONOUR:  If these people are as interested in this as

that, well perhaps they can put their hands in

their pockets.

MS CAMERON:  I am sure they would if we had time to

communicate with them. Another problem that has

stopped that is that we had started a letter to the

chemical companies who are the advertisers to this

magazine asking them for contributions which some

of them said that they would give. We have got a settlement in the Federal Court which we are told is binding and a condition of that settlement is

that we do not say anything to anybody about any

aspect of this case. Both Mr Houghton and

Mr Williams of Sly & Weigall have really hammered

and laboured that point to me that I am not to,

literally, open my mouth to anyone. I have been

advised by the police to put this case before the

media, but I am also advised that if I do that I

violate the condition of the settlement. Now, if we go writing letters off to people saying, "This

is what has happened. This is what Rural Press

Gamester(4) 24 18/9/91

have done. Please help us", we would contravene

the condition of the settlement.

I do not say this disrespectfully. particularly grateful for your assistance in this	I am
case.	I think of all the judges you have helped us

considerably but I do not think you understand the

workload that I am being expected to do.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, I am perfectly well aware of the

enormous workload that is on you.

MS CAMERON:  Many days I just cannot work. I do not get out

of bed because I am not able to.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand that you have serious organic

problems. I understand from the medical evidence

that you suffer from very high stress levels and I

appreciate all the consequences of it, but the

matter has really got to come on for hearing.

MS CAMERON:	Yes, but there is no point in it going on for hearing if you are going to have me before the
Court not able to think because I am upset or I do not like standing up in Court amongst all those
people.  We might as well not take up the Court's
time. There is no point in having a hearing unless
we can do the job properly.  We need legal aid and
I am asking for a month in which I can, having read
this letter from the Administrative Appeals
Tribunal, get somebody to write to them. We can
get somebody to write to Mr Duffy.  We can get
somebody to make an application to
Mr Justice Grove.  What is the reason, can we have
the reason why that cannot be done because I cannot
think of the reason?
HIS HONOUR:	The reason is that people obviously regard your

case as hopeless, that is the legal aid

people - - -

MS CAMERON:  No, that is what they say. There are five

opinions from leading people like Mr Jucovic, from

Professor Officer, who say that we have prospects

of success and public interest. The only person

who has said we do not have prospects of success is

the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission and they
made the statement without any of the opinions
before them and they made two contradictory

statements before and after. That is the only

person who says our case is hopeless.

HIS HONOUR: That is obviously the view that is maintained.

We are dealing with public servants who are charged with examining applications for legal aid and grant

it when they think it is appropriate and, in your

particular case, it has been granted on one

Gamester(4) 25 18/9/91

occasion and then revoked and in relation to the

Legal Aid Commission they have taken the view,

obviously, that you do not have a case. That is

the only conclusion one can draw from the

correspondence.

MS CAMERON:  We have been denied the proper right of appeal

and they have not addressed our application. I do

not want to go on about this book because I find it

terribly upsetting but the rougher the justice the

higher the book sales, it is as simple as that. I

come from a family of hundreds of years of devotion

to law and to have to be treated like this, it is

preposterous.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, I am sorry, but the matter has got

to go on for hearing on 4 October. You will have

to appear yourself if you cannot get legal aid.

MS CAMERON:  Could we please have the reason why, and I want

to write it down.

HIS HONOUR:  The matter will go on for hearing because after

a hearing on a number of occasions I made certain

orders to bring about this case being heard on

4 October, the special leave application having
been filed as long ago as August last year, and I

see no reason in respect of anything that you have

put before me today for altering those orders.

MS CAMERON: There are some other things I would like to put

to you as a reason why - I have not finished.

HIS HONOUR:  Carry on, if you have got other matters to put

to me.

MS CAMERON:  If we cannot get an adjournment to address the

legal aid, if we could get an adjournment - I do

not know when the next hearing of the High Court is

for applications for leave to appeal - Mr Coombs

would handle it for us and that would please us

very much indeed because he is a kind person who is

prepared to do it without payment and a good

barrister and he would take the trouble of wading

through the morass if he had time.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr Coombs, or somebody else, can make the

application to the Court on 4 October.

MS CAMERON:	But he will be in Lismore.
HIS HONOUR:	Well then somebody else can make the

application, but the matter is going to come before

the Full Court on 4 October. What the Court does

with it on that occasion will be a matter for that

tribunal.

Gamester(4) 26 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  The problem is that I do not think that we are

going to find somebody: (a) kind enough to do it

without payment; (b) with the time to read that

morass of material by 4 October.

HIS HONOUR: Well, they are matters that can be put to the

Full Court on 4 October.

MS CAMERON:	But by whom, if I am in the Federal Court?
HIS HONOUR:	You will just have to get your Federal Court proceedings adjourned.
MS CAMERON:	Yes, but what if they will not?
HIS HONOUR:	If they do not, then you will not be there.

This matter has been, in effect, listed for this date since 20 June and there were lengthy delays and the delay in this case in getting it on for

hearing is outrageous in terms of a special leave

application.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but let us look at why it is outrageous.

HIS HONOUR: It is outrageous because, among other reasons,

you have simply refused to comply with Order 69A

rule 4. It took you 13 months, I think, to comply

with it.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but I go back to my statement that I do

not think you understand the workload and the state

of my health.

HIS HONOUR:  Complying with Order 69A rule 4 was a fairly

simple operation.

MS CAMERON:  I remember that. I did not have a book and I

did not know what it was about and Mr Jones said

put a temporary affidavit on to get it before the

Court and do another one later, which I did.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Now, have you got anything further to say

why I should revoke the orders, Ms Cameron?

MS CAMERON:  I will just quickly check if I may. We have

not yet had advice from a solicitor as to what are

the grounds for appeal.

HIS HONOUR:  You have put on an affidavit under Order 69A

rule 4 which sets out the grounds.

MS CAMERON:	Yes, but I did not have legal advice about it.
HIS HONOUR:	The fact is that you have put on a document

which -

Gamester(4) 27 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  We only did it because we could not get a

hearing date for the summons in relation to that,

which I have also set out in the affidavit. Did

you read that affidavit I filed on Friday the 13th?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I have read that.
MS CAMERON:	I filed that to keep us before the Court. I

had not had legal advice about it.

HIS HONOUR:	I hear what you say.
MS CAMERON:	The other point is that we have been advised

that if the case is pushed through the Court before

our legal aid matters are dealt with, that we have

a considerable claim for damages against the

Commonwealth. That means another round of

litigation of years and years and years, and why

should taxpayers pay damages - assuming we

won - that Rural Press should properly pay?

HIS HONOUR: 

Yes, well that will be the responsibility of

the public servants who are responsible for this
erroneous decision, if it is erroneous. Litigation

must come to an end.

MS CAMERON: Justice must be done.

HIS HONOUR:  It is justice according to law and there are

rules in this Court which have got to be complied

with.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but that is what we are not doing, that is

what I say we are not doing. The Legal Aid

Commission has a duty to give us a proper right of

appeal.	They have a duty to reply to our
correspondence.	Now, I say, we are not following
the laws.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Ms Cameron.
MS CAMERON:	If they get away with just ignoring our legal aid application, they will do it to other people.
Why should they get away with it?
HIS HONOUR:	No doubt you will have your remedies against

them.

MS CAMERON:  No, there are no remedies. I do not think

there are any remedies. They are a law unto

themselves. There are no remedies. If there were

we would not take them because, as you say, the

whole thing has got to come to an end. We cannot

go running off chasing remedies against a person in

the legal aid department who does not reply to a

letter.

Gamester(4) 28 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Ms Cameron.
MS CAMERON:	I would just like to round it all up by saying

that we have an opening to go back to the

Administrative Appeals Tribunal. We have somebody

who is prepared to try and make access to Mr Duffy.

There is discretion under the Administrative

Decisions (Judicial Review) Act for a stay where

there is an application in regard to that case. I

think one thing that I have not got with me - it is

in the country - which, I think, is probably

relevant from your comments, is that if we had the

original grant of legal aid we could see that it

does apply to whatever course this case takes

which, I think, may or may not overcome the problem

of your saying that we no longer have a case, that

is has been dismissed.

I make again the point that the

correspondence, these letters, clearly show that we

were not given the opportunity to appeal, that the

Legal Aid Commission made a decision without even

the material before them. We had a letter saying,

"Send us the material, fill in the form, do this",

then a week later they wrote saying, "We've

considered your appeal". They did not even have

the material and I just do not think we should

suffer because of that and they should reply to our

application for legal aid to handle this matter.

That is all I want to say in regard to that,

but there are other things in this summons.	Do you
want me to finish that first, or what?

HIS HONOUR:  No, move on to the other orders.

MS CAMERON: Please may I sit down for a moment?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, certainly.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, certainly. By the way, Ms Cameron, my

associate tells me that the order which is missing

is not the order of 4 September, which was not

taken out, but the order of 22 July 1991. That has

not been returned.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. I really am sorry about the documents. I

mean, I would be cross, too, as a publisher, if

somebody mislaid documents. But as soon as I go

from here I will try and find them.

HIS HONOUR:	Thank you.
MS CAMERON:	If you go to the second page of the summons, 6A

at the top. I do not understand how these matters

work, I do not know whether the Judges read the

applications for special leave to appeal on the day

Gamester(4) 29 18/9/91

or before, but I have been told that they are

usually fairly short hearings and what I would like

would like to ask is that we can copy this material

that we have now managed to get, the material that

is missing from the book, and deliver it to the

Court within a day or so, so that it can be read

before.

HIS HONOUR: Well, there is no reason why you cannot deliver

it beforehand. It will be a matter for the Judges who comprise that bench as to whether they read it

beforehand or what they do with it. It is not

unknown for documents to be put before the Court to

supplement the book, but let me say this, that does

not mean that they will be read. The application

book is the book which is supposed to contain the

relevant material and it will be a matter for the

Judges who comprise the bench as to whether or not

they allow you to use that material. But there is

no reason why, administratively, you cannot send

that material off.

MS CAMERON: Well, that reopens - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I will just confirm that. Is that right? Yes,

that is right.

MS CAMERON: Well, that reopens the question that we feel

that the index should be settled in our presence.

We did not receive notification of the index and I

have got here the envelopes which were sent to and we have had to instruct Galloway & Co to not

process letters to them because they act only as

our address for service of court documents, which

are not normally in letters, they are served, and

we - - -

HIS HONOUR:  But that is the only place that they should be

served. Could I draw your attention to another

matter, which I have not drawn your attention to in

the past, but the affidavits which you file do not

comply with the provisions of Order 39 rule 10,

namely that they should provide for your true place

of abode.

MS CAMERON: Well, the police have told me that I am not to

give my residence out to anyone.

HIS HONOUR: It is Order 39 rule 10:

An affidavit shall state the description and

true place of abode of the deponent.

Well, whatever the police tell you, the fact is

that your affidavit does not comply with the rules,

Gamester(4) 30 18/9/91

but that is a side issue for the moment,

Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON:  The Federal Court said that I could use our

postal address.

HIS HONOUR:  They may have said you could use the postal

address but the fact of the matter is that your

address for service is care of Galloway & Co, and

that is where - until that address for service is

changed, that is where the Rgistrar should send

material, and nowhere else.

MS CAMERON:  Why could they not use our mail address for

letters?

HIS HONOUR:  Because the whole point of having an address

for service is for the very reason that that is the

address to which all documents are to be sent to

you.

MS CAMERON: Well, that means we are going to lose our

address for service.

HIS HONOUR: That may be the case.

MS CAMERON:  Because I cannot run up an account with them

that I cannot afford to pay.	They have been
particularly kind.	We have never had an account

from them. They have been more than kind. But I

cannot just impose on that kindness.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you will have to get some other address

for service, but that is a matter for you.

Anyway - - -

MS CAMERON:	The point is that we did not know that
HIS HONOUR:	You were addressing issues raised by order 6A.

MS CAMERON: Well, the point that I am saying is that we did

not know the index was being settled on that day

and we feel it should be settled when we can have

input into it. If we are going to suffer - - -

HIS HONOUR:  The book has been settled and there it is. It

is too late now to be going over these matters.

Some of these matters were raised in the summons of

30 August which came before me on 4 September.

MS CAMERON: Well, could we just have an order that these be

included in the book if we can get them in in a

couple of days?

HIS HONOUR:  No, the book has been settled. You can have

those documents administratively put before the

Gamester(4) 31 18/9/91

Court and it is a matter for the Judges who are

hearing the matter on 4 October.

MS CAMERON:  But then if they do not read them well then,

will have suffered.

HIS HONOUR:  You will have an opportunity - if they think they are relevant they will read them in Court.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. The other thing I was going to ask which

I have not - it is not clear in the summons - is as

to whether or not this Court could do what the

Federal Court does, and that is give us a copy of

the transcript free of charge. Mr Justice Sheppard

in the Federal Court does that because we are

terribly hampered by not having transcripts.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I am not prepared to make that order.

There is a world of difference between transcripts

in trial situations and transcripts here.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. If we could go to number 6 of the

summons.	One of the matters that is really causing
all sorts	of problems for me is the fact that it is
well over	a year since we filed summonses seeking a
waiver of

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, I am afraid, so far as I am aware,

there is no such summons anywhere in the materials.

The first I heard of that particular summons is a

reference to it in your summons of 30 August. If I

remember rightly there was nothing mentioned in

your affidavit in support of that summons of

30 August, and as far as I am aware there is no

summons about seeking waiver of filing fees.

MS CAMERON:  I have got copies of them, and they were filed.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you may have copies but I understand - is

that right?

THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR:  Your Honour, I would have to check

the files. Not as far as I know.

MS CAMERON: Well, I do not know what has happened to them

because they were filed.

HIS HONOUR: Well, has it got a number on it?

MS CAMERON:  They would either have S89 of 1990, that is one

of them, and then there is one in the legal aid
decision which went before Justice Gaudron, and the

other one is filed in the matter which was before

the Chief Justice.	So that each have different
file numbers.

Gamester(4) 32 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR: Well, it is more than a file number. Is the

Court seal on it? If there is a document, then you

would have the Court seal on it. If it has been

filed, the Court seal would be on it.	Have you got
a document with the Court seal on it?

MS CAMERON:  I will just go through. I have only got the

one file here but I will just have a look. But we have not always got documents with the Court seal,

they have just taken the one and we have got the

others. Two of them are definitely in files that I

have not got with me. This business of whether or

not the documents have the Court stamp on them:

when I was before Justice Mason he made a comment

about the fact that Mr McCluskey said to him - and this is in the transcript which we have - that the

Court documents do not always have the stamp on them.

HIS HONOUR: Well, any summons - it is my understanding

there are always two copies of the seal put on.

One is retained and one is handed back.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, that is our understanding too, but we did

not always get a stamped copy back.

HIS HONOUR:  If you did not get a stamped copy back that

would indicate to me that it has not been filed.

Certainly, so far as I am aware, there is no

summons filed in this Court.

MS CAMERON:  There are three that we have filed. Two I have

not got with me because they are in a different

file. That is something else that I have not been

able to do. I think that the one for this is in

the file before this, because I have got three

files on this, and it was filed when we first

started with this. But, you know, again, it upsets

me considerably to try and - I do not even have the

money to go to the dentist and I would give
anything to go to the dentist.	I have got a broken

tooth which cuts my tongue every time I talk. One

of the things that is causing a problem because we

do not have the - I am sorry, I just remembered

something that I had forgotten.

One of the problems about lack of funds is

that we want to file the appeal against the

decision of the Chief Justice and apparently that

is a $300 filing fee.	I had that money on the day
that I brought that summons to the Court.	And

another thing I did not bring with me because I

could not carry it is the folder of correspondence,

and I have not got the letter from Mr Jones in

which he says that he will accept that summons.

Gamester(4) 33 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  But the point is that at the moment, as far as

I am concerned, there are no outstanding summonses.

MS CAMERON: Well, I have got three but I just have not got

them with me.

HIS HONOUR:  There is nothing in the Court records which

indicate that such a summons has been filed. I can

only deal with it on that basis, in the absence of

any evidence from you of a sealed copy of those

documents.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, well, I can get the evidence. I can get

the correspondence for the Court and the copies.

Whether or not they have got seals on them I do not

know because I know that not all of the documents

we have got back have the seals on them.

HIS HONOUR:  The fact is at the moment there is just no

evidence in relation to that matter.

MS CAMERON:  Would you have the power to waive them without

the summons, because it is really urgent?	I just
desperately need the money.	The Federal Court have

waived them, and Justice Gaudron waived the filing

fee for one. There should be the summons and the

affidavits for that in the legal aid file.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, the matter will have to be done

formally, Ms Cameron.	I am not prepared to make
informal orders.

MS CAMERON: If I can get those, what should I do about

them? What should I do about it?

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, if you have the sealed copies - Mr

Martin, I do not think these orders concern you at

all, or do they? Maybe they do.

MR MARTIN:	It is a matter for the Court, Your Honour.
MS CAMERON:	Mr Martin was not there when Justice Gaudron

dealt with it.

HIS HONOUR:	No, it is really a matter for the Court.
MR MARTIN:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	I may stand those orders over on certain

conditions.

MR MARTIN:  Could I just say this, Your Honour: that order

as sought in this summons is identical	to the order
sought in the summons dated 30 August,	which
Your Honour has already dismissed.

Gamester(4) 34 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I know. There was no argument put in

favour of that on that particular occasion.

MR MARTIN:  I assumed it had been abandoned, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  So did I. There was nothing in the affidavit

about it.

MR MARTIN: That is correct.

HIS HONOUR:  It was only mentioned in the summons, if I

recollect correctly.

MS CAMERON:  I probably forgot about it, because I do forget

things. I have just remembered something very

important that I want to say to you now.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, what is that?

MS CAMERON: Another reason for the stay on the 4th is the

settlement. Mr Martin has told you that there is

no settlement, there is no document, no evidence at

all, whereas I filed an affidavit in this which

comprises a written offer, a written acceptance,

and an agreement which was signed by us, and then

they just said - well, they had changed their mind,

they do not want to go ahead.

HIS HONOUR:  If my recollection of the correspondence is

correct the document had to be returned within a

certain specified period of time - was it seven

days?

MS CAMERON:  No, there was no - I would like to take you to

that correspondence. There was no time limit for

returning the document.

HIS HONOUR:	Or forthwith, or within a reasonable time.
MS CAMERON:	There is nothing. And the reason why it was

not returned the next day or that day, which was

our desire, was because Sly & Weigall - and we have

now got evidence of this from Mr Parker, the

managing director of Royal Press - the reason for

the delay was that Sly & Weigall demanded a

certificate be signed, which included their firm in

the settlement without the knowledge or

instructions of their clients, and that is what

caused the delay. We could not find somebody to

sign it. But there was no time limit for returning
the agreement. There was time limit for accepting

the offer.

HIS HONOUR:  But the matter of the settlement has been

before me. On 23 May, it was the first thing that

you spoke about when you got to your feet on that

occasion. I think that was the first occasion I

Gamester(4) 35 18/9/91

heard about the settlement. It was referred to

again on 20 June.

MS CAMERON:  I do not know if you have read the letters I am

referring to, though. You see, we have got a

letter from them which say they acknowledge that we

accept their offer.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, well, I have certainly read some of the material in relation to it. It was annexed to an
affidavit. I remember I skimmed through parts of
it and then there was an adjournment, I think on 20 June, and I went outside and read some
documents, including that.  I notice the letter of
3 August 1990 says:

We confirm our letter of 27 June as varied by our letter of 30 July will remain open until

5 pm on Friday, 10 August.

MS CAMERON: That is right, and we replied in writing on

8 August and said, "We accept it", and then they

wrote on 10 August saying, "Here's the agreement,

sign it".

HIS HONOUR: Well, I see a letter from you dated 19 November

and you say something like, "We have had trouble

trying to find a solicitor prepared to sign the

certificate you demanded to be signed in regard to

the witness to the agreement we agreed to sign".

MS CAMERON:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	So it was months later, three months later,

that you signed the document and returned it.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, that is right, and the reason for that was

because we asked about 15 solicitors if they would

sign it and they said they could not.	There were
varying reasons.	They said they would have to

spend at least $10,000 becoming familiar with the

case to advise and that they thought it was

unconscionable, and about two months delay was

caused by the fact that Sly & Weigall said that

they would amend it so that we could get a

solicitor to sign it, and we waited for them to

give us the amended certificate, and when it

arrived it was exactly the same.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, well, the correspondence - your letter of

8 August indicates that you had not signed it at

that stage and - - -

MS CAMERON: There is absolutely no evidence anywhere to

contradict the fact that we did everything possible

to return that agreement to them, signed. And

Gamester(4) 36 18/9/91

also, Sly & Weigall undertook to draft an agreement

which reflected the offer and acceptance.

HIS HONOUR:  The fact is that the document apparently was

not settled within time.

MS CAMERON:  But there was no time limit for it.

HIS HONOUR: Well, there was. It was to be done by

10 August.

MS CAMERON:  No, that was - we were to accept the offer by

10 August, and then they would provide an agreement

which reflected the offer.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, this matter has been gone over

again. It has really got no relevance to this

application, to have this matter - - -

MS CAMERON: Well, it is just that if I am in the

Federal Court handling the settlement matter and we

cannot get somebody to appear in the High Court,

then we have lost our right to apply for leave to

appeal in the High Court.

HIS HONOUR:	I am sure that whoever is hearing the matter in the Federal Court, if it is still going on
4 October, will take into account the position
between the parties. After all, Mr Martin is
involved in both matters. At least I assume he is.
Yes.  Now, are you pressing order 6A in your
summons of 9 September?
MS CAMERON:	I have now managed to get those documents from

the Court Reporting Service.

HIS HONOUR: Right, I understand that. Now, 6 and 7 I have

dealt with.

MS CAMERON:  Do you mind if I sit down?

HIS HONOUR:  Not at all, Ms Cameron. There is no need to

stand up. So far as I am concerned, you can stay

seated for as long as you want to.

MS CAMERON:  Thank you. Well, 6B is tied up with the rest

of it.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, 6 and 7: what I propose to do in relation to those is to stand over those two -
MS CAMERON:	Could you get them from the other Court files,

those summonses?

HIS HONOUR:  As far as this Court is concerned the summonses

have never been filed in this Court, and what I

propose to do is, I will stand those orders over to

Gamester(4) 37 18/9/91

arrange for the matter to be relisted on some other

occasion upon the condition that you produce sealed

copies of those summonses.

MS CAMERON:  And what if I cannot?

HIS HONOUR: If you cannot, then I will order - and I will

specify a time for it, and if the matter is not re-

listed then that part of the summons will stand

dismissed and you will have to take out a fresh

summonse in relation to the matter, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON:  What if the Court has just stamped them

as - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I cannot act on that basis. If there are no

documents in the Court Registry and you do not have

any sealed copies, then the only conclusion I can

draw is that, whatever your recollection may be,

the documents were not filed.

MS CAMERON: Well, they certainly were. What I am wondering

is - are you able to waive the fee? What I am
trying to say is, would you be able to waive the

fee for the filing of the appeal against the

Chief Justice without the summons, because I do not

have that with me, that file.

HIS HONOUR:  No, Ms Cameron. The matter will have to be

done formally.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. My understanding from reading the rules

was that you did have power to do it without a

summons. I may be wrong, but - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Is there anything further you want to say in support of this summons?

MS CAMERON:  Yes, just a couple of things. I think No 7, I

think I have probably made a mistake, "That the

filing fee for the filing of an appeal against the

index be waived" - I think what I meant there was

the filing of the appeal against the Chief Justice,

because I do not remember if there is a filing fee

for the - unless I mean for the - I am sorry, I do

not know what I meant.	I am sorry to sound so
stupid, but I think there are two issues.	One is

the refund of fees that I have already paid and one

is that we are most anxious to file the appeal

against the Chief Justice, which I have not been

able to do because I simply do not have the money

to pay for it.

HIS HONOUR:  One of the problems, though, is that the rule

provides for a Court or Justice in a particular

case for a special reason to direct that a fee

shall not be taken. So it is not a question of

Gamester(4) 38 18/9/91

dealing with it in the abstract, it will have to be

dealt with in relation to the specific matter that

you want the fee waived in relation to.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, well, we specifically would like it waived

in regard to filing the appeal against the judgment

of the Chief Justice. That is holding up the

filing of that appeal.

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

I think what I will do in the circumstances is

dismiss orders 6 and 7, in the present state of the

evidence, and if you want to lodge a notice of
appeal, together with a summons, seeking the waiver

of a fee, well, that can be dealt with. But you

are a long way out of time to appeal against an

order. And again, it is not an appeal, is it? You

would have to seek leave to appeal.

MS CAMERON:	No, we do not have to seek leave in that jurisdiction. But I did bring that summons to the
Court on the last day and Mr McCluskey would not
accept it, and there is correspondence with
Mr Jones about that.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MS CAMERON:	So if I could just get this clear.  I have got

to bring that - file another summons.

HIS HONOUR:  No, I am not saying you have got to do anything

but, I mean, really, you would be well advised,
before you start worrying about the Chief Justice's

orders, to see what happens in relation to the

matter on 4 October. If you lose the case on

4 October then the whole matter is finished.

MS CAMERON: Well, we are advised that that is not right

because - I am sorry to sound as if I am

contradicting what you are saying.

HIS HONOUR: That is quite all right, you are entitled to

contradict what I say. That is your prerogative.

MS CAMERON:  I mean, my problem is, I do not know what is

right but we have been told that that should be on

before 4 October, should be filed before 4 October.

HIS HONOUR:  I am afraid that what the Chief Justice has

decided, as far as I can see, has got nothing

whatever to do with your special leave application.

MS CAMERON:  No, I agree with that. The subject that I am

on is the waiving of the fee. If you could waive

the fee before it is filed, which is my

understanding of what the rule said, that you have

just read out, that you can waive the right for a

Gamester(4) 39 18/9/91

fee to be taken, in other words it can be waived

before. You see, we have been told before that we

must pay the fee and then seek to recover it,

whereas we have argued before that that is not

right, that the Court had discretion to not take it

in the first place.

HIS HONOUR: That is right. There is no doubt that the

Court has got power in an appropriate case, but you

are seeking a general order in paragraphs 6 and 7

and I am not prepared to make any general order.

MS CAMERON: Right.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, is there anything further that you want to

say in support of this summons?

MS CAMERON:  Yes, I will just have a quick look. not quite clear. I am still

So what I have got to do is get

all the material, all the evidence about the

summonses, and put another summons on with that

attached to an affidavit?

HIS HONOUR:  I am not prepared to make any general order

and, indeed, so far as I am aware there is no

outstanding summons.

MS CAMERON:  But you said if I produce that, then you can

address it.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is what I said and if it is a

summons directed - what are these summonses?	You
spoke about three summonses.

MS CAMERON: Seeking to waive the filing fees in three

matters.

HIS HONOUR:  What are the three matters?

MS CAMERON: There was the application before

Justice Gaudron.

HIS HONOUR:  But I thought you said a moment ago that she

had waived the fee in that matter.

MS CAMERON:  She waived one, but there was a second one that

she did not.	I think that might be for the appeal
before the Full Bench.	Then there was another fee

- I have paid three lots of fees and there is one

that I need to pay in regard to the outstanding

appeal, but I am not sure what fees are payable
for. Probably there is one for this application.

I am quite certain there was one for the

application for leave to appeal.	Maybe that is the
three.	Maybe there are only two outstanding.

There are three in regard to the request that we do not have to pay the fee for the filing of the

Gamester(4) 40 18/9/91

appeal against the Chief Justice. So that would be

it. There are two outstanding; one has been dealt

with and then there is the one that we ask if we do

not have to pay it in regard to the filing.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, these summonses are certainly not

filed in relation to the special leave action. The

Deputy Registrar is making a search to see whether

or not they may be filed in the matter

Justice Gaudron dealt with or the matter that the

Chief Justice dealt with.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, well, unfortunately I - you see, this

document was done in a terrible rush when I was not

well, and I think I have truly messed up order No

7.       I think what I meant there was - in fact I am

sure that is what I meant - could the - because I

refer to it in the affidavit - could the filing fee

be waived prior to it being paid for the appeal

against the Chief Justice. I will just find what I

said in the affidavit, because I am sure that is

what I meant.

On pages 12 and 13 of the affidavit I filed on

the 13th I do say that we would like the filing fee for the appeal against the Chief Justice waived, so

I am confident that that is what I meant in order

No 7, if it could be waived before it is filed.

Because I have had this debate a number of times

with Mr McCluskey, that our interpretation of the

rules are that the fee does not have to be paid

before the request is made to the Court, whereas he

said the fee had to be paid and then you had to

make the request.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. I am instructed that there has been no

summons filed in relation to the matter concerning

the Chief Justice's hearing for waiver of a filing
fee. There was one summons in Justice Gaudron's

matter and she did direct that the fee be waived.

So there are no outstanding matters, no outstanding

summonses, so far as this Court is concerned.

MS CAMERON: It is correct that I have not filed a summons

in regard to the Chief Justice matter, and that is

what I am asking now, if that can be waived in

accordance with the rules before it is paid, but

the others, I am confident that I can provide

evidence that they have been filed.

HIS HONOUR: Well, what are the others that have been filed?

MS CAMERON:  I think one was for this application for

special leave to appeal and I think the other one was for the appeal to the Full Bench in the legal aid matter from the decision of Justice Gaudron.

Gamester(4) 41 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR: Certainly so far as this special leave

application is concerned it is not here.	How long
do you want to produce this evidence?

MS CAMERON: Unfortunately it is in the country, is the

problem. I have got to come to Sydney on Monday so

I could bring it on Monday, but I would really -

you see, my problem is if I do not follow the

advice that we are given, I get into trouble from

the other people in Gamester, and we have been

advised that we should have the appeal against the

Chief Justice on before 4 October. What I would

ask is that we be permitted to file that - that the

fee is waived in advance before we pay the fee,

because that is - I mean, everything has been

prepared for weeks but I just simply cannot file

it, I do not have the money. I used that money to

pay my Medibank Private and I just do not have it.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, it seems to me, on the surface,

having read the Chief Justice's judgment, that it

is just a sheer waste of time.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but the judgment is wrong in fact and we

should have the right to point that out.

HIS HONOUR:  The fact that you say it is wrong in fact does

not affect the matter. The Court is not going to

turn up some questions of fact if the ultimate

decision is correct.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but it is also wrong when he says - when

he is talking about the area that - -

HIS HONOUR:  I will cut you short now. I am not prepared to

make any order waiving the fee for that summons in

relation to that matter.

MS CAMERON:	Why is that?
HIS HONOUR: Well, I have a discretion in relation to the

matter. An appeal could not possibly succeed

against it and it is long out of time for

appealing.

MS CAMERON:  That is not our fault. We brought it on the

due day.

HIS HONOUR:  You did not bring it on the due day because it

has not been filed; you did not pay your fee.

MS CAMERON:	We brought it to the Court and Mr McCluskey would not accept it.
HIS HONOUR:	Well, you make that allegation. The fact is

that there is no evidence before me at the moment

of any outstanding summonses.

Gamester(4) 42 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:  My understanding is that the decision to waive

the fee should be on a basis of impecuniosity, not

on the legal points, because you have not got

before you our evidence where we say

Mr Justice Mason is wrong.

HIS HONOUR: Well, I have nothing before me at the moment.

I intend to decide the question of orders 6 and 7

on the material before me. Now, at the moment

there is not a shred of evidence before me that

there are any outstanding summonses.

MS CAMERON:  No, but order 7 is very badly worded. want with order 7 is a decision that you will waive What I

the filing fee for the appeal against the Chief

Justice before it is paid, and that is what I mean.

I know it is terribly inefficient, but that is what

I mean. And the affidavit refers to that, and my

understanding is that that is a decision based on whether or not we can afford it, not based on the

merits of what we want to argue.

HIS HONOUR:	The Court has got a general discretion and
MS CAMERON:	But you do not have the evidence before you of

where we say we have a point of appeal.

HIS HONOUR:  I do not have any evidence before me. Now, I

am not going to be interrogated by you, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON:  No, but I am just explaining -

HIS HONOUR: At the moment there is nothing in front of me

which would support orders 6 and 7. Have you got

anything further to say in relation to those

matters?

MS CAMERON:  Yes, could I take you to pages 12 and 13 of the

affidavit where I put the material before you about

it. And also there is the affidavit on the file

where they found the summons before Justice Gaudron
which talks about my financial position and that of

Gamester.

HIS HONOUR: That is not before me.

MS CAMERON:  It is in this affidavit. I have mentioned it.

On page 12, paragraph 22, it starts - I have not

mentioned the financial position because I had

mentioned it in the other affidavit and I thought

you could rely on the other one.

HIS HONOUR: Well, it is not before me and I do not intend

to rely on it.

MS CAMERON:	But it has been filed.
Gamester(4)	18/9/91
HIS HONOUR:	It has not been filed in this proceedings.
MS CAMERON:	But your associate just said he referred to it,

he found it.

HIS HONOUR:	Found what?
MS CAMERON:	The affidavit about our financial position.
HIS HONOUR:	He never said any such thing.
MS CAMERON:	He found the summons and the affidavit is with

it.

HIS HONOUR:  He never found any summons at all. The Deputy

Registrar has found a summons that is in anothE - matter altogether. It is in a file in relatio~ ~o

Justice Gaudron.

MS CAMERON:	But I understood you could use that.
HIS HONOUR:	It is not in evidence in this case at all.

MS CAMERON: Well, I understood that was - I am sorry, I do

not understand. I thought you could use that.

HIS HONOUR:  This is a summons seeking certain orders. Now,

if you have any evidence in relation to that, you

tender your evidence in support of it.

MS CAMERON:  But I understood that anything that we had

filed in this Court you could use.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is incorrect. What is evidence in

one summons is not evidence in another.

MS CAMERON:  I did not understand that. I am sorry.

HIS HONOUR:  You yourself on a number of occasions have

affidavit that you have filed in other proceedings. annexed to an affidavit in support of a summons an

MS CAMERON:  I have been told to do that because it is more

likely to be read if I do that, without you having

to go and find it.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Would you address your submissions - time

is marching on in relation to this matter.

MS CAMERON: Well, the last one, order No 9, one of the

problems that we have got is that Sly & Weigall do

not talk to us, they do not reply to our

correspondence, they do not serve us with copies

of - - -

HIS HONOUR:  I have no jurisdiction to order them to comply

with proper and reasonable professional conduct and

Gamester(4) 44 18/9/91

I do not propose to make any such order. If they

are not acting in accordance with proper and

reasonable professional conduct, then you may have
remedies against them in relation to a disciplinary

body or, if they infringe the process of this

Court, by action for contempt against them.

MS CAMERON: Well, they have not provided us with copies of

- they filed a summons here and had the

orders - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Which summons are we talking about?

MS CAMERON: Well, Sly & Weigall, all of the summonses that

they have filed in this Court or had heard since

20 June, I think it was, they did not serve us with

copies.

HIS HONOUR:  I have not heard of any summons that they have

served since 20 June.

MS CAMERON:  They moved this Court to change its orders and

we did not know about it until after the event when

the copies of - they had the orders changed, is one

that I have heard about since.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MS CAMERON:	Now, we were not notified of that.
HIS HONOUR:	You say you were not notified but -

MS CAMERON: It is not just me, it is Galloways, it is other

people - - -

HIS HONOUR:  You make these statements from the bar table.

I am not going to allow you to make these statements from the bar table any longer.

MS CAMERON:  I had an affidavit that I tried to file, I did

file, of Mr Fellows from Galloways.

HIS HONOUR:	I have not got any such affidavit.
MS CAMERON:	Why is it that we file material and it is not

there?

MR MARTIN:  Your Honour, could I interrupt? Your Honour, I

have difficulties elsewhere. There are really only

three short points I wanted to make relating to

directions, not concerning the summons.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR MARTIN:	Your Honour, those three matters firstly are:

there has been a problem concerning service of sealed orders. The orders of 4 September were

Gamester(4) 45 18/9/91

sought to be served on the applicants care of

Galloway & Co, being the address for service in the

proceedings given by the applicants. On

16 September the sealed orders were returned in an

envelope bearing the notation "Return to Sender".

We are just concerned as to what is the present

address for the applicants concerning service.

The second point, Your Honour, is that we

would be seeking a direction that item 9 in the

index contained in volume 1 of the application book

be removed - that is the affidavit Your Honour has

referred to of Ms Cameron dated 11 September 1991.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you do not need any order from me. It is

my understanding that that will just be torn c .t of

the application book administratively.

MR MARTIN:  If Your Honour pleases. The third point is,

Your Honour, the settled index includes a number of

the orders which Your Honour made on 21 February,

23 May, 20 June, 16 July and 22 July. Those orders

have not been included in the application book and all we would be wanting to do is to be given leave

to supplement the application book with those

particular orders which were included in the

settled index.

HIS HONOUR:	Were they part of what the Registrar - - -
MR MARTIN:	Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Well, they should have been in the book and

there is nothing to stop you putting on a
supplementary book to comply with the orders if the

applicant has not done it.

MR MARTIN:  Thank you, Your Honour. Your Honour, those are

the only matters. If I could be excused?

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Your instructing solicitor will remain

here?

MR MARTIN:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON: Well, I was just going on about the problem we

have had with Sly & Weigall not serving documents

on us. The arrangement we have with Galloways,

which we have told Sly & Weigall many times, is if

they take notices of motion or summonses or orders,

any court document to Galloways, they will be

accepted, but they will not accept - that we can no

longer afford to have Sly & Weigall using that as

our mailing address.

Gamester(4) 46 18/9/91

Sly & Weigall for a number of years wrote to

us at our post office box and then because we said

that - I made a comment about the cost of it, they

have started sending several copies of the same

he has to open them, ring me in the

letter to Galloways and so we had to ask because

country, which is a cost to him. So we asked him

simply to return to Sly & Weigall any letter that

was not open, and we have told Sly & Weigall that

if they serve court documents open, not in a
letter, on Mr Galloway, they will be dealt with.

Now, we say that they have done it just to disrupt the service. They have sent letter after

letter, copies of the same letter, to Galloways,

and they have caused a breakdown of that facility,

which we have relied on and we would not be able to

replace it.	We do not have the money to replace
it.

HIS HONOUR: Well, Ms Cameron, that is your address for

service. As long as it remains the address for

service, Sly & Weigall are perfectly entitled to

utilize it. If there is some breakdown, that is a

matter for you to fix up.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but why can they not continue to post mail

to our mail box?

HIS HONOUR:  It is a matter for them. They are entitled to

act in accordance with the rules, and you have

provided an address for service of documents and

they are entitled to send documents to that

address, or serve documents.

MS CAMERON:  And what is item 9 of the index? I do not have

the index with me?

HIS HONOUR:  Item 9 is your affidavit of 11 September which you have filed in the application book, giving explanation for missing evidence. That was not part of the documents settled by the Registrar.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. Now, the orders which Mr Martin has

requested to put in a supplementary index, the

index that we received from Mr McCluskey did not

have those orders in it.

HIS HONOUR:  I did not note what those particular orders

were. What were those orders? Yes. Ms Cameron,

my associate tells me that in the first index which
was sent to you that those orders were not in it, but in the index as amended two further documents
were provided for and they were the orders of

21 February and the order of 23 May 1991.

Gamester(4) 47 18/9/91

MS CAMERON:	21 February?
HIS HONOUR:	21 February 1991 and the order of 23 May 1991.

MS CAMERON: Unfortunately we did not have that index.

Well, if Sly & Weigall can have permission to file

a supplementary book, could we please have

permission to file - - -

HIS HONOUR: 

No, their supplementary book is to comply with

something that you failed to comply with. All they
are doing is making right what you have not made

right.

MS CAMERON: 

Yes, but what we want to add is material which

we asked to be in the index which was taken out.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I know, and which the Deputy Registrar,

who has control of these matters, refused to make.

Now, he has the responsibility, under the Court

rules. It is his judgment as to what should go in

the book. You put in a document that he did not

provide for, that has to be taken out; and you

failed to put in two documents which he did provide for, that has to go in. I have given Sly & Weigall

permission to put on a supplementary book to add

that. In fact it is part of the same book. What

you are seeking is to add new material altogether

and I will not permit you to do it.

MS CAMERON: But the Registrar has put in five inches of

material that neither Sly & Weigall nor us

requested to go in the book.

HIS HONOUR: That is his responsibility. That was his

judgment.

Now, is there anything further? I have

listened to you now for over 2 hours - for almost

2 hours.

MS CAMERON:  I have just lost the summons. Here it is.

Well, we are just at a loose end to know what to do

about Sly & Weigall. We have not received copies

of orders that they have taken out in the

Federal Court or this Court and we say that they

have not attempted to serve them on us. We have

asked - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, you make that assertion. Sly & Weigall

say, as I understand it, that they have served

documents on Galloway & Co. You heard what

Mr Martin said, the document was returned.

MS CAMERON: Well, we have got an affidavit from Mr Fellows

and also from - I have not got an affidavit but the

people who clear our mailbox say that the things

Gamester(4) 48 18/9/91

just simply have not been received. We have

approached the Law Society asking them to make them

do it and the comment we got was that Mr McKay was

the ex-President and they could not do anything

about it.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, I do not propose to do anything

about it.

MS CAMERON:  And the only - the last point is that we have

asked for the costs because we feel that - or, at

least, we ought not have the costs ordered against

us because we are entitled to have the index

settled in our presence and it has not been through

no fault of our's. We did not know of the day and

Mr McCluskey had been told of the arrangement that,

for financial reasons, we had to ask Galloways not

to process letters and we had asked him to post -

use our postbox.

HIS HONOUR:  Mr McCluskey was sending documents in

accordance with the rules and he is not required to

do anything more. If that address is not

satisfactory, then you must change it.

MS CAMERON:  We cannot afford to.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is unfortunate but Mr McCluskey is

entitled to send it there.

MS CAMERON:  But why has he used our postbox satisfactorily

and then suddenly there is this change to using

Galloways' when we have announced it is

unsatisfactory?

HIS HONOUR: Please do not interrogate me.

MS CAMERON: I am sorry, I do not mean to.

HIS HONOUR:	I will not hear anything further in support of the summons. I have heard you at length. I do not
believe there is anything that you can usefully say
in relation to any of these orders that you seek.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. If I could just tidy up this point. I am

that material here by Monday? I can have it here

sorry, Your Honour, I am just not concentrating.

by Monday.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, order 6 seeks an order:

That a hearing date be given for the

outstanding summonses - - -

MS CAMERON:  Yes.

Gamester(4) 49 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  As far as I am concerned, there are no

outstanding summonses before me.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but if I bring them on Monday.

HIS HONOUR: Well, if you bring them on Monday, that can

only be done if I adjourn the hearing of these

summonses. What you seek is an order that the

hearing date be given for the outstanding

summonses. Well, I do not know what the

outstanding summonses are.

MS CAMERON:	It is just the waiver of the filing fee.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes, I appreciate - - -
MS CAMERON:	Or a refund of it.
HIS HONOUR:	So far as I am concerned, at the present time,

I am not prepared to stand those orders over.	You
can make a fresh application in respect of it.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, that is what I mean and I will bring it

here on Monday.

HIS HONOUR:  You can file a fresh summons in relation to

the - - -

MS CAMERON:  Yes. What I am wondering is when would it be

heard?

HIS HONOUR:  I do not know when it will be heard. It

certainly will not be heard by me next week or the

week afterwards.

MS CAMERON: Yes. Yes, I am sorry, I cannot think of

anything other than going over what I have already

gone over.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Thank you, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON:  I am sorry I have taken so long. But what I

would like is the reason why - and I want to write

it down - we cannot have an adjournment of

4 October.

HIS HONOUR:	I am proposing to give an extempore judgment.
MS CAMERON:	Thank you. Can we get copies of the judgment

free from this Court as we do with the Federal

Court, because, you see, I have not had copies of

the judgments, that has been the problem.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, the judgment will be part of the

transcript of the proceedings. You will just have

to take the matter up with whoever is involved in

Gamester(4) 50 18/9/91

relation to it. You will just have to purchase the

transcript just the same as anybody else.

MS CAMERON: Well, we cannot afford to is the problem.

HIS HONOUR:	I have heard you say that.
MS CAMERON:	Would we be able to go and read it in the Court without paying to have to read it?
HIS HONOUR:	Ms Cameron, I propose to give the judgment now.

You will hear the judgment given.

MS CAMERON:  I do not know that I will be able to write it

down - all of it.

HIS HONOUR:  I do not want to hear you, Mr - - -

This is a summons dated 9 September 1991 in

which Gamester Pty Limited and Barbara Ann Cameron,
who are applicants in an application for special

leave to appeal against a judgment of the

Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia, seek

a number of orders.

The first order is:

That there be a re hearing of matters

addressed by the court on 20/6/91 relating to

the application for a stay and 4/9/91.

The second order is:

That orders given on 20/6/91 and since

effecting a stay be vacated and or stayed

pending the outcome of order number 1. herein.

The third order is:

That all costs ordered be reversed.

The fourth order is: 

That the applicants' application for leave to appeal be stayed pending the outcome of all outstanding legal aid appeals and applications

as per order 1.

The fifth order is:

That the applicants be given an extension of time to seek advice on an affidavit in support

of their application for special leave and

that the index be settled in the presence of

both parties or preferably in court by

His Honour.

Gamester(4) 51 18/9/91

They are the first five orders sought and it is

convenient to deal with them in a group. Their

common basis is the intention to set aside orders

made on 20 June 1991 whose object was to ensure

that the special leave application would be heard

on 4 October 1991.

The basis of the application for the order of

a rehearing seems to be that Ms Cameron claims that she drew the attention of counsel to documents that

she says confirmed that she had outstanding

applications or appeals in respect of legal aid

pending. However, she says that counsel informed

the Court that there were no legal aid matters
outstanding. Consequently, I refused to stay the

hearing of the special leave application until her

legal aid applications were determined.

The history of this matter, up to

20 June 1991, is set out in my judgment in Gamester

Pty Limited & Anor v Rural Press Limited which is

now reported in (1991) 65 ALJR 515. But it will be

necessary to mention some of that history.

The application for special leave to appeal

has had a long and chequered history. As I

mentioned in the judgment of 20 June 1991, the
applicants were in gross breach of Order 69A rule 4

of the Rules of this Court and had been for nearly

10 months. They had also failed to comply with

appointments to settle the index for the

application book. In the result, on 5 February of

this year the respondents to the application took
out a summons seeking that the application for

special leave to appeal be dismissed for want of

prosecution. They sought an alternative order that

in the event that that order be refused that the applicants be put on a timetable which in effect

would ensure that the matter was heard

expeditiously.

On 7 February, the applicants filed a summons

in which they sought a stay of the special leave

application "until after the hearing of legal aid

appeals" and until -

the arrangements made with Mr Jones, the affidavits in support of this summons, for

medical reasons, as with the Federal Court.

Those summonses came before me on 19 February

of this year. During the hearing of that matter,

Ms Cameron, who appeared for herself and who was

given leave to appear for Gamester Pty Limited,

asserted that she had three avenues of legal aid

applications or appeals on foot. She referred me

Gamester(4) 52 18/9/91

to the detail of those applications or appeals.

She conceded on that occasion, I think, to use her

words, "that the legal aid people said that she had

no appeal". I was concerned with the state of the

evidence and whether or not she did have

applications or appeals pending. I adjourned the

matter for a considerable period of time until 23 concerning the state of the legal aid matters.

At the hearing on 23 May the evidentiary

position had not advanced further than the position in February 1991. Ms Cameron said on that occasion that she had been told to claim privilege in

respect of certain correspondence with the Legal

Aid Commission. She also claimed that a settlement

of the whole action between the parties had taken

place.	I was concerned that her case was not being
properly put.	I adjourned the matter, again, to 20

June and I directed that the papers be sent to the

Bar Association and the Law Society to see whether

those bodies would make a barrister and solicitor

available to the applicants to conduct their case

and to assist me.

When the matter came on for hearing on

20 June 1991, Mr Newlinds of counsel appeared.

There was some discussion as to the capacity in

which he appeared. He accepted that he was

appearing in the same way as a barrister appears on

a dock brief. It is clear that he was appearing as

agent for the applicants. The circumstances are

set out to some extent in my judgment of

20 June 1991 but, perhaps, I should refer to what

exactly was said on that occasion.	Mr Newlinds
said to me:

As I understand it, I am here as if it was a

dock brief.

Addressing Mr Martin, counsel for the respondents,

I said: 

it seems to me that the situation is that, in

effect, Mr Newlinds is acting as some form of

agent for the applicants themselves.

Mr Newlinds then proceeded to conduct the

proceedings on behalf of the applicants.	During
the course of the hearing on 20 June, he	said to
me - it is at page 44 of the transcript:

all I want to say about the Legal Aid

Commission of New South Wales situation is

this, is to clarify some matters Ms Cameron

put before Your Honour on the last occasion

and the occasion before that, and that was her

Gamester(4) 53 18/9/91

suggestion that there was an outstanding

application to the Legal Aid Review Panel and

that as a result of that having not been dealt

with, the provisions of section 60 of the Act

gave rise to a stay and that stay applied to

this Court which gives rise to an interesting

question of law. Unfortunately, in my

submission, we do not get to that interesting

question of law because - - -

I interrupted and said:

It lacks an evidentiary foundation.

Mr Newlinds said:

Yes. The fact of the matter is that all her

applications to the Legal Aid Review Panel

that could possibly be relevant to these

proceedings have been dealt with in so far as
she has received letters from the Legal Aid

Review Panel saying, "We have dealt with them and you've lost." She says, of course, that

they have not been dealt with properly and

that she was denied natural justice in that

she was not given a hearing or that they did

not see all the documents that she wanted them

to see. The difficulty with that is that

there is very limited evidence before you, if

there is any, as to what documents they should

have seen and how that denial of nature

justice - - -

I again interrupted to say:

Well, it would not make any difference.

And Mr Newlinds said, agreeing, in effect:

- - - because there is a deeming provision in

the Act that says once a decision has been

made, it is deemed to have been made properly.

A little later I said to him:

Well, it is somewhat of a shame, I could have

disposed of this matter on 21 February -

and I then said to him that having read the

material myself, what he had stated from the bar

table seemed to me to be the prima facie position

and that there was nothing outstanding, or at

least, there was nothing outstanding at that time.

Nevertheless, Mr Newlinds, in his argument to support the application to stay the special leave

application, relied on the fact that there was an

Gamester(4) 54 18/9/91

appeal against a judgment of Justice Gaudron in

this Court which concerned prerogative writs

directed to Mr Justice Lockhart in proceedings
before him in respect of the revocation of legal
aid. That aid had been granted to the applicants

under section 170 of the Trade Practices Act 1974

but had been revoked as long ago as March 1987.

In my judgment of 20 June I dealt with the question of legal aid in detail. I incorporate in

this judgment that part of the judgment of 20 June

which starts on page 516:

It is convenient to begin with the

summons of 7 February 1991. At the heart of

that summons is the assertion by the

applicants that there are on foot legal aid

appeals which have not been resolved. It is

necessary to refer to the matter of legal aid

in some little detail. An application for

Trade aid was originally granted but the grant was

legal aid was made under s 170 of the

withdrawn in approximately May 1987 by which

time at least $70,000 had been expended on the

litigation - indeed on one account, somewhere

near $100,000 had been granted. It is

possible that a further application for legal

aid was made in early January 1990 for the
reinstatement of the grant of legal aid under

the Trade Practices Act but, in any event,

that does not affect the matter.

In 1989, the applicants took proceedings

in the Federal Court for a review of the

decision refusing to continue legal aid to

them. That application was No G270 of 1989.

Lockhart J, who heard the matter, assumed the

application to be made under the

Administrative Decisions (Judicial Review) Act

His Honour dismissed the application on	application for prerogative relief. 1977. His Honour also treated it as an	15 September 1989 on the grounds that the
application was an abuse of process. His
Honour said:

"The case has reached a point where I

will not allow it to go on any longer. To do

so would, I think, be a serious erosion of the

resources of this Court and of the

Commonwealth and a waste of everybody's time

and money. I have on many occasions

achieve and how she seeks to achieve it; but I

throughout the two days sought assistance from

have not been helped in that enquiry. I do

Gamester(4) 55 18/9/91

not suggest that she deliberately refrained

from helping me, or refused to help me, but I

think she simply has no case whatever on which

she can help me."

That application was refused, as I have

said, on 15 September 1989. An application

then came before Gaudron J for a mandamus

directed to Lockhart J. The application for

mandamus was refused by her Honour on

17 May 1990. In the meantime, as I have

already said, the application brought under

the Trade Practices Act had been dismissed on

19 March 1990.	The applicants have appealed
against the decision of Gaudron J.	They did

so on 7 June 1990 and the appeal is now listed

for hearing, I think, on 8 August 1991. The

applicants have also made applications to the

Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales for

assistance in relation to the Trade Practices

case, No G521 of 1986, and the application

G270 of 1989.

When the matter first came before me on 21 February this year, I was concerned as to

whether or not the applications in relation to legal aid were outstanding I adjourned the two

summonses until 23 May 1991 to have evidence

concerning the matter put before me. When the

summonses came on before me on 23 May 1991,

the evidence in relation to the question of

legal aid was still in an unsatisfactory

state. Consequently, I adjourned the

proceedings until today and directed

Mr McCluskey, the Deputy Registrar, to forward

a copy of the transcripts of the hearing

before me to the relevant officers of the

N.S.W. Bar Association and the New South Wales

Law Society to ascertain whether they would

make available any legal practitioner to

assist the Court in relation to this matter.	I was told this morning that the Law Society
made a solicitor available but it appears that
his instructions were withdrawn by Ms Cameron,
one of the applicants. But, with the consent of the Bar Association, Mr Newlinds has
appeared here today, uninstructed by a
solicitor, to act on behalf of the applicant.
I	very much indebted to his assistance in
th	matter. He has examined the

co -espondence between the applicants and the

Legal Aid Commission and its review committee.

He has informed me that there is no relevant

legal aid application or appeal on foot in that Commission at the present time. That

being so, there is no ground whatsoever for

Gamester(4) 56 18/9/91

making an order in terms of par 1 of the

applicants' summons of 7 February 1991.

Mr Newlinds contended, however, that I

should also take into consideration the appeal

to be heard on 8 August 1991 since that

involved a matter of legal aid but, as I

pointed out to him during the argument, even

if that appeal were successful, it would not

assist the applicants in respect of par 1 of

this summons. The reason I say that is that

the appeal is against the order of Gaudron J refusing to grant a writ of mandamus against

Lockhart Jin respect of his Honour's judgment

given on 15 September 1989 dismissing the

application to review the decision to refuse
to continue legal aid in respect of the
application under the Trade Practices Act.

But that application under the Trade Practices

Act was dismissed on 19 March 1990. So that

even if Lockhart J was in error in dismissing the application No G270 of 1989, the prospect of any order being made that he should

reconsider the decision to refuse to continue

legal aid is extremely unlikely to say the

least. The application under the Trade

Practices Act has been dismissed. Legal aid

in respect of that application cannot be

granted. Moreover, so far as appears from the

materials, no application for legal aid has

been made to prosecute the present application

for special leave, although it appears that

the applicant has written to the

Attorney-General seeking the grant of legal

aid in another proceeding in which she seeks

to enforce an alleged settlement with the
respondents or some of them and to prosecute

the appeal which is for hearing on

8 August 1991.

an order in terms of par 1 of the applicants' Accordingly, there is no basis for making

summons of 7 February 1991.

I then went on to deal with the respondents'

summons of 5 February. Ultimately I made orders,

the effect of which was that this matter would come

on for hearing on 4 October 1991. Indeed, the

fourth order I made on that occasion was:

That the applicants, Gamester Pty Limited and

Barbara Ann Cameron, take all steps as are

necessary to have the application for special

leave listed for hearing in the sittings of

the High Court commencing on 4 October 1991.

Gamester(4) 57 18/9/91

On 4 September I heard an application on

behalf of the applicants in which they sought to

vary my orders which had been made on 20 June as

amended on 22 July so as to extend the time for

filing the copies of the application book until 13

September 1991.

Application books have been filed. In perhaps

two respects the book does not comply with the

index which had been settled by the Registrar but

for present purposes that is a matter of no moment. The only matter that now seems to be outstanding in

respect of the orders which I gave in June and

July 1991 is that the matter be brought on for hearing by the applicants on 4 October.

None of the matters that have been put before

me today provide any ground for revoking or

re-examining the orders which I made on 20 June and

amended on 22 July and 4 September.	They seek to
re-canvass the issues dealt with on 20 June.	As

was pointed out by the New South Wales Court of

Appeal, in Wentworth v Rogers (No 9), (1987) 8
NSWLR 388, at page 394:

Even if a party has inadvertently not been heard, the jurisdiction to set aside an order

and to allow him a hearing is not a right but

an II indulgence 11 •

It is probably true that today Ms Cameron has canvassed most of the matters that she would have wished to canvass if I had allowed the matter to be reopened. I do not propose to allow the matter to be reopened but I might say that if I had, nothing

I have heard from Ms Cameron today would persuade

me to change my orders.

Accordingly, I propose to dismiss the summons

in relation to the first five orders.

Order 6A is no longer pursued, nor is order

6B. Orders 6 and 7 seek an order:

That a hearing date be given for the

outstanding summonses filed seeking waiver of

filing fees.

Order 7 seeks an order:

That the filing fee for the filing of an

appeal against the index be waived should
order number 5. herein not come into effect

and an appeal required.

It is a little difficult to know precisely

what is sought by these orders, as Ms Cameron

Gamester(4) 58 18/9/91

candidly acknowledged. The gist of them seems to

be that she claims to have filed summonses seeking

a waiver of fees in respect of an appeal she wishes

to lodge against a judgment of Chief Justice Mason

given earlier this year. So far as I am aware,

there are no outstanding summonses in relation to

the waiver of fees, but Ms Cameron claims that she

has copies of these summonses but does not have

these with her.	My mind has wavered as to what I
should do in relation to this matter.	But in the

end I have come to the conclusion that I will not,

at this stage, dismiss the summons in respect of
those two orders but I will stand the matter over

till 10.15 am in Sydney on Monday next to enable Ms Cameron to produce sealed copies of the outstanding summonses which she says exist. If the copies of

the summonses are produced, then I will deal with

those matters on that occasion so far as I am able

to. Otherwise it is inevitable that the orders

sought in paragraph 6 and 7 will also be dismissed.

Order 8, which is sought in the summons, is:

That the respondents be ordered to comply with proper and reasonable professional conduct and

serve on the applicants copies of any summons

and orders they take out and that reasonable

notice in accordance with the rules be given

for the hearing of any summons filed.

Although this order is directed to the three

respondents to the appeal, in substance, it seems

to be directed to their solicitors and arises out

of the way in which documents have been served on

the applicants.

The address given for service by Gamester Pty Limited and Ms Cameron is Cl- Galloway & Co,

Phillip Street, Sydney. It seems that both the

Deputy Registrar of this Court and the solicitors

for the respondents have sent documents to that

address, although Ms Cameron has apparently

requested that they send some of them at least not

to that address but to post office box 370,

Queen Victoria Building, Sydney.

The respondents' solicitors are well within

their rights sending documents to the address given

for service. Apparently, there is some problem

between Ms Cameron and Galloway & Co in relation to

service of some documents but that is a matter for

her to deal with. Alteratively, she can change her

address for service. I do not propose to make the

order sought in respect of paragraph 8.

Gamester(4) 59 18/9/91

The ninth and final order which is sought is

that the respondents pay the applicants' costs of
the summons.

However, there is only one result which can

flow from the filing of this summons and that is

that, once again in this litigation, the applicants

must pay the respondents' costs.

Accordingly, the orders which I make in this

matter are that orders 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6A, 6B and 8
which are sought in the summons of 9 September be

dismissed.

I stand over until Monday in Sydney at 10.15

am so much of the summons as seeks orders 6 and 7.

I order that the applicants pay the

respondents' costs of the summons.

I certify for the attendance of counsel.

Since orders 6 and 7 do not directly involve

the respondents, there is no necessity for them to

appear on Monday next unless they desire to do so. Is there anything further, Ms Cameron or

Mr Martin?

MR MARTIN:	No, Your Honour.
MS CAMERON:	I did pick up something but I have just - you

see, the trouble is I have got too tired to

concentrate. I did recall thinking something was

wrong in regard to the filing of the summons
against Chief Justice Mason but I cannot remember

exactly what you have said. You see, the trouble

is I just cannot remember anything.	The more
exhausted I get I cannot remember.

HIS HONOUR:  Are you talking about what I said in relation to orders 6 and 7 or are you talking about - - -

MS CAMERON: In your judgment you said, "It is still

difficult to acknowledge precisely what is being

sought which Ms Cameron candidly acknowledges. It

seems failed to file a summons against

Chief Justice Mason."

HIS HONOUR: "It seems - - -"?

MS CAMERON:  I have made a note here, "It seems failed to

file a summons against Chief Justice Mason."	Now,
I have got the summons.	I want to file it but I
cannot afford the fee.

Gamester(4) 60 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. I understand what your point is. The

matter will be dealt with on Monday, Ms Cameron.

If it turns out that you do not have any document -

well, I will adjourn that until 10.15 am on Monday

morning.

MS CAMERON: There is just one other thing that I - I do not

know whether it should be raised now or later, but

if, say, for example, we cannot get anyone to go to
the Court on 4 October or I cannot get there and
the whole thing is dismissed, we would be wanting
to file a summons or ask for a stay of the costs
orders in the High Court because a term of the
settlement is that we discontinue in the High Court

and if we are effective in getting the settlement

enforced, well then, the respondents would not have

a right to recover any of these costs orders.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, that is a matter that - obviously,

one would hope, that you will be represented on

4 October. If it should come about that you fail

in your application, then some application can be

made to the Judges who sit on that particular

occasion.

MS CAMERON:  I am just not sure how to do it, whether we

should file a summons or what we should do about

it.

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Cameron, normally, you might seek to do it

orally to the Judges.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, but if I am not there, you see.

HIS HONOUR: Well, you will have to take your own advice

about these matters.	I cannot be giving you advice
about these matters.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, I am sorry. Thank you very much, we are

most grateful.	We are not pleased with the result
of it but grateful that you could sit in it.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, thank you. Adjourn this matter until

10 15 am in Sydney on Monday morning.

MS CAMERON:  I am terribly sorry, I am in the Federal Court

on Monday morning. I forgot.

MR MARTIN:  That is not correct. Ms Cameron is in on

30 September.

MS CAMERON: That is not correct.

MR MARTIN:  I am sorry, Ms Cameron is correct. There is a

directions on before Mr Justice Sheppard at 9.30.

MS CAMERON: It is not a directions, it is a hearing.

Gamester(4) 61 18/9/91

HIS HONOUR:	At 9.30?
MR MARTIN:	On 23 September.

MS CAMERON: It is a hearing of notice of motion.

HIS HONOUR:	How long is that expected to last?
MS CAMERON:	Two hours.
MR MARTIN:	I understand it is only in for directions.

Ms Cameron has filed a number of notices of motion

which I think she seeks to make returnable on the

23rd.

MS CAMERON:  No. I do not seek; here it is, stamped.

MR MARTIN:	I understood that Mr Justice Sheppard i,:ended to allow only three-quarters of an hour; that
His Honour would have a matter in for hearing
commencing at 10.15.
HIS HONOUR:	Ms Cameron, I will fix the matter for 11.30 then which should give you sufficient time. If
there are any problems, you can communicate - but
you have to understand that I have to go to
Canberra on Monday, although it will not be until
Monday evening. I will then be away for the rest
of that week and I would be here on the following
Monday but I think that is a bit late in day.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. You see, I have got two copies of the

same summons and they have got two copies of a

different one so I will give this to Mr Richards

now. That is for the Federal Court. Yes. Well, I

am sure I will be able to get here by 11.30.

Otherwise, the following Monday would - if it is

just refunding the fees, well, the following Monday

would not be too late for that.

HIS HONOUR:  I will list the matter for 11.30 on Monday

next.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, I am sorry I forgot.

AT 12.51 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL MONDAY, 23 SEPTEMBER 1991

Gamester(4) 62 18/9/91