In Re. An Application under the Status of Children Act Summary

In Re. An Application under the Status of Children Act [2002] NTCA 5
TITLE OF COURT:  COURT OF APPEAL OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
JURISDICTION:  CIVIL APPEAL FROM THE SUPREME COURT EXERCISING TERRITORY JURISDICTION
FILE NO:AP7 of 2001
DELIVERED:  19 June 2002
HEARING DATES:  11 March 2002
JUDGMENT OF:  Martin CJ, Mildren & Bailey JJ

REPRESENTATION:
Counsel:
Appellant:J B Waters QC and P Keyzer
Respondent:  G Downes QC and R Bruxner
Solicitors:
Appellant:Geoff James
Respondent:  Brian S Cooney
Judgment category classification:           C
Judgment ID Number:
Number of pages:  1

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL
OF THE NORTHERN TERRITORY
OF AUSTRALIA
AT DARWIN
In re. An Application under the Status of Children Act [2002] NTCA 5

No. AP7 of 2002
CORAM: Martin CJ, Mildren & Bailey JJ
DECISION
(Delivered 19 June 2002)
THE COURT:
[1]After delivering judgment, counsel for the respondent sought a certificate for two counsel pursuant to Supreme Court Rule 63.72. We have since received written submissions from Mr Bruxner, counsel for the respondent, as well as a letter from Mr James, solicitor for the appellant, to the effect that the appellant does not wish to file a submission in reply thereto and does not seek to put any oral argument before the Court.
[2]Having read the respondent's written submissions we think this is a proper case for a certificate. There will therefore be an order certifying that the retainer of two counsel by the respondent was warranted.
---------------------------------------------

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory heard an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court, which was exercising its Territory jurisdiction under the Status of Children Act. The case involved a dispute between the appellant and the respondent, who were parties involved in a proceeding under the Status of Children Act. The legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's retention of two counsel was warranted, given the circumstances of the case.

The Court found that the respondent's written submissions made a compelling case for the retention of two counsel. The Court noted that the appellant had not filed a submission in reply or sought to put any oral argument before the Court, which suggested that the appellant did not dispute the respondent's argument. The Court also considered the complexity of the case and the importance of the issues involved, which justified the retention of two counsel.

Based on the above, the Court decided to certify that the respondent's retention of two counsel was warranted. This meant that the costs associated with the retention of two counsel would be payable by the appellant. The Court's decision was a significant one, as it set a precedent for future cases involving the retention of counsel under the Status of Children Act.

In summary, the Court of Appeal of the Northern Territory heard an appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court under the Status of Children Act. The legal issue before the Court was whether the respondent's retention of two counsel was warranted, given the circumstances of the case. The Court found that the respondent's written submissions made a compelling case for the retention of two counsel, and certified that the respondent's retention of two counsel was warranted. This decision sets an important precedent for future cases involving the retention of counsel under the Status of Children Act.

In Re. An Application under the Status of Children Act

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established