Green & Ors v Australian Hydrocarbons Nl

[1988] HCATrans 297

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S75 of 1988

B e t w e e n -

NEVILLE GEORGE GREEN
MARIE ANNETTE GREEN

STEPHEN RICHARD LACHER

PHILIP EDWARD GREEN

ANDREW DAVID GREEN

Applicants

and

AUSTRALIAN HYDROCARBONS N.L.

Respondent

Application for special leave

to appeal

MASON CJ

Green
MR P.E. GREEN:	Your Honours, I am a party in this matter.

BRENNAN J

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 25 NOVEMBER 1988, AT. 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

SlTl/1/PLC 1 25/11/88

I seek leave to appear as a party. Although I am a solicitor I·am not currently practising as a

a solicitor in New South Wales. (of N.G. Green & Co)

MASON CJ: Applications for special leave to appeal are

required to be presented by counsel, under the Rules.

MR GREEN: Yes, Your Honour, I am aware of that. There is a

problem about that and I would like to go over that

if I may. Briefly, the problem is that I have been

unable to obtain the representation of counsel.

Counsel were booked. They did ask that their fees

be paid in advance. The fees were obtained

yesterday by bank cheque but I was subsequently

advised that events had overtaken us and that counsel

were no longer able to be ready for the hearing this

morning. Because of those circumstances, Your Honours,

I would like to apply for an adjournment of the

application that is before you today.

MASON CJ: And what adjournment do you seek?

MR GREEN:  An adjournment for a short period as is necessary

to obtain the representation that we need, Your Honour.

MASON CJ:	But what is the period you have in mind?
MR GREEN:	Your Honour, that would need to be arrived at in

consultation with the counsel that we have in mind.

I do not know their dates. I do not know their

availability but I do not anticipate it is a very

long period.

MASON CJ: Yes. What do you say about this, Mr Jackson?

MR D. F. ·JACKSONd QC:  Your Honour, I appear with my learned

frien, MR..J.S. WHEELHOUSE, for the respondent.

(instructea by Allen Allen & Hemsley)

We oppose the application for an adjournment

for a number of reasons. The first, with respect,

is.an. air of improbability about the propositions

advanced by Mr Green. One notes, for example, that

the counsel who are retained appear also as counsel

for the applicant in matter No 8. The second feature

about it is if this happened yesterday why could they

not get someone else? To take one example, the list

of counsel in various matters today includes numerous

competent counsel who would be capable of dealing

with a speci~l leave application at short notice. The

third matter is that the issue involved in these

proceedings is whether the appellants who were a

firm of solicitors should deliver bills of cost
in taxable form in relation to a number of matters

in which they obtained a large sum of money from a company which one of them had been instrumental in

founding.

SlTl/2/PLC	2	25/11/88
Green

fotm.cling. They failed in the proceedings before a master,

befo~e a Judge at first instan~~ on appeal and they

failed in the Court of Appeal with no member of the

Court of Appeal being in their favour and, in fact, we were not called on in the Court of Appeal. That

is some indication of the merits of the matter.

And, Your Honours, in so far as a question of

justice is concerned, may I say two things: one is

that the proceedings are simply for delivery of bills in taxable form, not to determine the liability under

them. That is a later point. The second feature is

that the nature of the matter appears rather starkly

- the last three lines on th~ page -

in what was said by Mr Justice McHugh. If I could take of the matters

where, prima facie, the charges in question appeared

to be grossly excessive - the last three lines on that

page and going over to about line 12 on page 65.

May I also say this, Your Honours, that this is

a case which was, in fact, to be listed once before

before the Court for special leave but it was, in

effect, pushed out by a more urgent matter. That

was on, I think, the sittings before last in the Court.

Finally, Your Honours, if the matter is adjourned,

we would ask two things in relation to it. The first, of

course, is costs brought about by the adjournment. The

second is that it would be heard on_ the next special

leave day here which is in a fortnight's time, I think.

MASON CJ: Yes, thank you, Mr Jackson. Mr Green, do you wish to

say anything in response to Mr Jackson?

MR GREEN:  Just this, Your Honour: I note that Mr Jackson has

said that there is an air improbability about what I
said. All I can say to that is that is available.

I have got the bank cheques here if he wishes to see

them. I have nothing further to say, Your Honour.

MASON CJ:  Thank you.

In the circumstances, the Court will stand

this matter over until the next motion day. The

applicants will pay the-respondent's costs of today

as between solicitor and client. The Court also

directs that the matter will come on peremptorily

on the next motion day in Sydney.

MR GREEN:  Thank you, Your Honour.

AT 9.47 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL FRIDAY, 9 DECEMBER 1988

SlTl/3/PLC	3	25/11/88
Green