Harrison v The State Transport Authority - [1990] HCATrans 194

-!.i"1USTRALIA,,L!"
---'»•'$-««<-'-'

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A20 of 1988
B e t w e e n -
PETER LINDEN HARRISON

Respondent Applicant

and
THE STATE TRANSPORT AUTHORITY

Applicant Respondent

Application to withdraw from

record

BRENNAN J

(In Chambers)

Harrison

23/8/90

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON THURSDAY, 23 AUGUST 1990, AT 9.15 AM

MR R. MELLOWS: If your Honour pleases, I appear for the

applicant on the' summons in this matter.
(instructed by Morgan & Associates)

MR P.L. HARRISON:	I am Harrison; I appear for myself.
HIS HONOUR:	There is just a delay while we get hold of the papers, gentlemen. But you could explain to me
what the nature of your application is.

MR MELLOWS:

Yes, Your Honour.

Your Honour, this is an

application under Order 7 rule 7 of the High Court
Rules, that Messrs Morgan cease to be the
solicitors for the appellant in this matter.
Your Honour should have before you the affidavits
filed in support of the summons, namely the
affidavit of David Glyn Morgan, sworn 20 August
1990, and a further affidavit of Wayne Eckert sworn
20 August.

HIS HONOUR:	Your material is the summons of 20 August, is that correct - the affidavit of David Glyn Morgan?
MR MELLOWS:	Yes, Your Honour - affidavit of Wayne Eckert as

to service, and there is a further affidavit, which
Your Honour should have of Russell Bruce Campbell,
dealing with the service of the summons.

HIS HONOUR:

Yes, I have those and I have read those

affidavits.

MR MELLOWS:

Yes.

Does Your Honour wish me to recite the

basis of the application at any length - - -?

HIS HONOUR:	No.
MR MELLOWS:	It is set out in the affidavits and - - -
HIS HONOUR:	What is the relevant rule?
MR MELLOWS: Order 7 rule 7, Your Honour.
HIS HONOUR:	Yes. Well I understand the nature of the

application and perhaps I should hear what your

erstwhile client has to say. Mr Harrison.

MR HARRISON: Yes, Your Honour. Well, I wish to have that

application dismissed, Your Honour. So, can I
proceed ahead with my reasons?

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR HARRISON:	Thank you, sir. Before responding to the

affidavits attached to the present application
dated 20 August 1990, I state my reasons why the present application should be dismissed. Two, I
hold the sealed order of the Chief Justice Mason,

Harrison

23/8/90

dated 24 August 1989, dismissing a previous
application by the solicitors, dated
22 August 1989. Three, the circumstances under
which that order was made are as follows: (a) the
solicitor filed an application dated
22 August 1989, which was heard by the
Chief Justice on 23 August 1989 and ruled on by

His Honour that day. (b) Counsel for the
solicitors sought and obtained an adjournment of

proceedings to 24 August 1989. (c) The solicitors
filed a further application dated 23 August 1989
which was dismissed…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Harrison v The State Transport Authority and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [1990] HCATrans 194
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, Peter Linden Harrison, appearing in person, sought to have dismissed an application made by his solicitors, Morgan & Associates, for leave to withdraw as his legal representatives. The application by the solicitors was brought under Order 7 rule 7 of the High Court Rules.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the solicitors' application to withdraw should be granted, particularly in light of a previous sealed order of the Chief Justice dated 24 August 1989, which had dismissed a prior application by the solicitors. Mr. Harrison argued that the current application was an attempt to overturn this existing sealed order and that the solicitors had not pursued the appropriate avenue for appeal.

The Court considered Mr. Harrison's submissions that the solicitors' previous application had been dismissed by the Chief Justice on 24 August 1989, following an adjournment. He contended that any subsequent application by the solicitors would be rendered ineffective by this ruling and that the solicitors were therefore retained on record until the finalisation of the High Court action. Mr. Harrison further argued that the proper remedy for the solicitors would have been an application for special leave to appeal to the Full Court against the Chief Justice's order, which they had not pursued. He asserted that the present application sought to bypass the existing sealed order and that such a course was not available.

Orders