Kweifio-Okai v RMIT University

[2002] HCATrans 26

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

GLEESON CJ
HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 15 FEBRUARY 2002, AT 2.02 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR G. KWEIFIO-OKAI appeared in person.

MR A. KOCIS:   If it please the Court, I appear on behalf of the respondent.  (instructed by Mallesons Stephen Jacques)

GLEESON CJ:   Yes, Mr Kweifio-Okai.

MR KWEIFIO-OKAI:   Your Justices, this application has received prior notification to the Court requesting an adjournment; secondly, leave to file a written submission.  If the respondent has no objections, then that is what I will request of the Court.  If the respondent has objections, then I will address the reasons why I am seeking the adjournment.

GLEESON CJ:   It is not only a question of whether the respondent has any objections, it is a question for the Court, but we will see what the respondent’s attitude is.  What is your attitude?

MR KOCIS:   Your Honours, other than costs thrown away, we have no objection.

GLEESON CJ:   Now you have to persuade us.  Yes?

MR KWEIFIO-OKAI:   I received notification of the appearance today three weeks ago and in that notification from the Court, I think the Registry inadvertently made the observation that there was no provision for the filing of a written submission.  By the time I sought clarification from the Court, it was only two weeks to this time.  The clarification was that, yes, a written submission can be made provided I seek leave from the Court to do so.  Now filing with two weeks’ notice with that clarification will give the respondent no opportunity to reply or to decide to reply.  Secondly, the two weeks’ notice for a person defending himself, I thought, was cutting it a bit too fine.  It is obvious the reason why I need to put in a written submission or summary of argument or what I would have done in the past in relation to the original application.

The Court must note that since late last year I was seeking from the Registry to be told when the case was likely to be heard.  That was because of a job obtained overseas.  I was to start at the job on 1 October.  I have foregone that job because I was not given adequate information at that particular time and when I was eventually given the notice, I just thought that the period of notice was simply too short.  Thank you very much.

GLEESON CJ:   Having regard, amongst other things, to the attitude taken by the respondent, the Court will stand the matter out of today’s list and will direct the Registrar that the matter is not to be relisted for hearing before this Court unless the applicant certifies in writing that he will be ready to proceed with the application on the occasion when it is next listed.

We will adjourn.

AT 2.07 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED