Kweifio-Okai v RMIT University

[2003] HCATrans 755

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M130 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

GEORGE KWEIFIO-OKAI

Applicant

and

RMIT UNIVERSITY

Respondent

Application for leave to reopen

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 20 JUNE 2003, AT 2.00 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR D.B. MOORE:   If your Honour pleases, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by Mallesons Stephen Jacques)

HAYNE J:   Are you, Mr Moore, conscious of any appearance by Dr Kweifio‑Okai today?

MR MOORE:   I am not, your Honour, no.  He has not been present in Court to my knowledge.

HAYNE J:   Perhaps if we could call Dr Kweifio‑Okai.

COURT OFFICER:   No appearance, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   Thank you.  Now, Mr Moore, are you aware of the fact that by letter dated 18 June 2003 Dr Kweifio‑Okai wrote to the Deputy Registrar saying, among other things, that, because of what he contended was short notice and his commitment to revision classes, in effect he asked that the hearing be stood over to September.  Are you aware of that letter?

MR MOORE:   I am aware of that letter, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   What do you say we should do?

MR MOORE:   In our respectful submission, your Honour, we would request that the application for the adjournment be dismissed and that ‑ ‑ ‑

HAYNE J:   No doubt in that connection you would refer, amongst other things, to Dr Kweifio‑Okai’s affidavit of 16 January 2003 in which he certified that he would be ready to proceed with the case?

MR MOORE:   Indeed, your Honour.  That certification was pursuant to a direction given by the Chief Justice on the occasion when the notice of motion was last before the Court and at which time Dr Kweifio‑Okai also sought an adjournment.  In our respectful submission, there is no proper ground being established by Dr Kweifio‑Okai for the adjournment to be permitted.

HAYNE J:   Then we are of the opinion that the application for adjournment should be refused.  What do you say we should then do, Mr Moore?

MR MOORE:   If the Court pleases, we would seek an order that the notice of motion be dismissed and we would also seek an order that no further application be permitted to be made by Dr Kweifio‑Okai in relation to these proceedings without leave of the Court.

HAYNE J:   Under what rule would you make that application, Mr Moore?  That is not, I think, an application of which notice has been given to Dr Kweifio‑Okai, has it?

MR MOORE:   No, it has not, your Honour.

HAYNE J:   Not having been given notice of it, I think there might be a little difficulty about us making an order of that kind, may there not?

MR MOORE:   There would be, your Honour, and I do not press it.

HAYNE J:   The notice of motion seeking to reopen the application for leave is dismissed.  Do you make any other application?

MR MOORE:   I seek an order for costs, if your Honours please.

HAYNE J:   The notice of motion will be dismissed with costs.

AT 2.04 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED