Gamester Pty Limited & Anor v Rural Press Limited

[1991] HCATrans 173

•

•

'1!'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA	•
Office of the Registry

Sydney No S89 of 1990

Bet we.en -

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 an extension of

time

MCHUGH J

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 16 JULY 1991, AT 10.16 AM .

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

Gamester(2) 1 16/7/91

MR B. RICHARDSON: If the Court pleases, I appear for the

respondents. (of Sly & Weigall)

HIS HONOUR:  There is no sign of the applicant. Have you

seen her in the presence - - -?

MR RICHARDSON:  No, I have not seen her outside at all,

Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Might the matter be called outside the Court

three times. Would you also call Ms Cameron as

well, Barbara Ann Cameron, three times, each party,

please, Deputy Registrar?

DEPUTY REGISTRAR:	No appearance, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes. Well, I will record that this matter has

been called outside the Court on three occasions

and there has been no appearance of the applicants,

or either of them.	What do you want me to do,
Mr Richardson?

MR RICHARDSON:  Your Honour, if you would dismiss the

application with costs.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I intend to do that. Before I do so,

could I draw your attention to a defect in the
order? The formal order does not give effect to
the orders I made. If you look at Order 5, it

says:

That in the event of the Applicants' failure

to comply with Orders 3 and 4 the Application

for Special Leave shall stand dismissed for

want of prosecution.

"Order 3" is obviously an error for "Order 2".

Order 3 is directed to the Registrar.	I draw your
attention to that.

MR RICHARDSON:  Does Your Honour require me to make any

application or should I merely submit an amended

order?

HIS HONOUR:  I think it will probably be necessary for you

to have an amended order submitted and it will have

to be re-served.

MR RICHARDSON:  Yes, that would be appropriate, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: There are some problems, of course, in relation

to the terms of the order. Paragraph 2 speaks of:

28 days of the date of this Order -

but the order is dated the twentieth day of June,

so I assume there are no problems about that but I

Gamester(2) 2 16/7/91

am just not quite certain what the state of the

authorities are on the point.

MR RICHARDSON:  Yes, perhaps I should seek to amend that to

make the date of the last appearance before the

Court.

HIS HONOUR:  There are problems about that because the

applicant - - -

MR RICHARDSON:	The applicant is not here.
HIS HONOUR:	- - - is not here, so you may have to give some

consideration as to whether or not some fresh

summons ought not to be taken out on your part.

However, it is a matter for you.

MR RICHARDSON:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Thank you very much.

In this matter the applicants have failed to

appear despite the fact that each applicant's name

has been called outside the Court on three

occasions. In the circumstances, I propose to

dismiss the summons with costs. Adjourn the Court.

MR RICHARDSON: If the Court pleases.

AT 10.21 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Gamester(2) 16/7/91