Goryl v Greyhound Australia Pty Limited

[1993] HCATrans 229

..

.

• ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Brisbane No B61 of 1992

B e t w e e n -

MARGARET ROSE GORYL

Applicant

and

GREYHOUND AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED

First Respondent

and

SUNCORP INSURANCE AND FINANCE

Second Respondent

For directions

MASON CJ

Goryl(3) 1 17/8/93

(In Chambers)

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 17 AUGUST 1993, AT 9.37 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

fa

MR S.J. FERGUSON: If Your Honour pleases, I appear for the

respondents. (instructed by Quinlan Miller &

Treston)

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Ferguson.
MR FERGUSON:	Mr Hayes has his name on the sheet for the

applicant, Your Honour.

Your Honour, this is a matter in which

proceedings have been removed from the Brisbane

District Court to this Court because of

constitutional questions. A statement of issues

has been agreed and my understanding - I appear as

agents for Brisbane solicitors - is that the matter

is simply to be allocated a hearing date, that it

is now ready to proceed.

HIS HONOUR:  I wanted to raise two questions about the

statement of issues.

MR FERGUSON: Yes, Your Honour. Well, I cannot assist in

the absence of counsel for the applicant,

Your Honour. Well, I may be able to assist but

only from one side.

HIS HONOUR:  There are two questions about the statement of

issues. Paragraph 10 states two questions and I do

not have any objection to the form of those

questions but paragraph 11, the last paragraph,

goes on to raise another matter but it does not

raise that matter in the form of a question. It

merely refers to a claim by the applicant.

MR FERGUSON: It is a contention, Your Honour, and counsel

for the respondents had suggested to applicant's

counsel that that would be redrawn. There were

some discussions. They resulted, last evening, in

an agreement that although the respondents

preferred their version which raised an issue

rather than a contention, there would be no

objection from the respondents if the matter

proceeded in this form.

HIS HONOUR: Well, at the moment there is an objection from

me and I require that objection to be satisfied.

MR FERGUSON:	Yes, Your Honour, I appreciate that.
HIS HONOUR:	What I have indicated is that I agree with the

view of your counsel, subject to what the

applicant says about it. ·

Now, the other thing is in paragraph 11, that

very paragraph, there is no reference to

section 19.

Goryl(3) 2 17/8/93

MR FERGUSON:	No, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	And the order for removal, made by the

Full Court, clearly identified section 19 as a

critical section.

MR FERGUSON:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Now, why is section 19 not referred to in

paragraph 11? There is no other reference to

section 19 in the statement of issues.

MR FERGUSON:  No, there is not, Your Honour. I cannot

assist Your Honour on that.

HIS HONOUR:  Well, it is all very unsatisfactory. My time

has been wasted; your time has been wasted.

MR FERGUSON:  Yes, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Will you convey my annoyance and irritation at

what has happened in the clearest possible terms to

counsel?

MR FERGUSON:	I shall do so, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Very well, it will have to be restored to the

list on some other occasion unless counsel for both

parties agree with the comments that I have made

this morning.

MR FERGUSON:	Yes, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	In which event a document can be submitted to

me, and then I will then allocate a date for

hearing to the case.

MR FERGUSON: If Your Honour pleases.

AT 9.41 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Goryl(3) 3 17/8/93