Morris v Hanley

[2003] NSWSC 92

CITATION:	Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 92
HEARING DATE(S):	20 February 2003
JUDGMENT DATE:	20 February 2003
JURISDICTION:	Equity
JUDGMENT OF:	Hamilton J
DECISION:	Reasons for judgment corrected in one regard.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE [21] - Courts and Judges generally - Judges - Other matters - Duties - To give reasons for decision - Correction of reasons to remedy inadvertent or clerical error.
CASES CITED:	Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42
PARTIES :	Janine Morris (P) Jack Norman Hanley (D1) Geoffrey Donald Reid (D2) Lynda Maree Cole (D3) Christine Valmae Hayward (D4) Anthony Bodycote (D5) Robyn Janelle Haydon (D6) Daphne Olive Boyd (D7) Beverley Joy Armfield (D8) Gayle Hanley (D9) Cecil Bellchambers (D10) Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (D11)
FILE NUMBER(S):	SC 2650/97
COUNSEL:	In person (P) P T Taylor (D1-11)
SOLICITORS:	In person (P) Parker & Kissane (D1-11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2003

2650/97 JANINE MORRIS v JACK NORMAN HANLEY & ORS

JUDGMENT

1 HIS HONOUR: As of today, the plaintiff's solicitor has ceased to act and Mrs Morris now appears in person. I have been handed on her behalf today four documents by way of written submission. They are entitled respectively Submission, Plaintiff's Submission, Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission and Schedule A of Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission.

2 The second of them, the document entitled Plaintiff's Submission, goes to the question of costs, as to which I indicated in my previously delivered reasons for judgment Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42 (“my judgment”) that I should accept further submissions from the parties. That matter will be disposed of in this way. Although Mrs Morris has presented a written submission in some detail, she has asked me for four weeks to prepare further submissions. This is not in reality objected to on behalf of the defendants and I propose to give her for this argument the first suitable day I have after the expiry of the four weeks for which she has asked. Some of the matters set out in the Plaintiff's Submission are not really by way of submission, but are evidentiary in nature, in that there are facts stated in them that were not in evidence in the proceedings before me. Mrs Morris must understand that, although I am able to hear any submissions based on the facts that are already in evidence, I cannot on the question of costs take into account additional facts, unless those facts are put into evidence before me. If there are any matters that Mrs Morris wishes to rely on in relation to costs that are factual and are not already in evidence, they must be put into evidence at the time of the further hearing by way of bringing forward further affidavits to that effect or in some other appropriate way. When I make orders after the delivery of this judgment, I shall give directions for the bringing forward of any further evidence.

3 Now that Mrs Morris' solicitors have ceased to act and Mrs Morris appears in person, she will need to file a notice of address for service and, before she leaves this Court this afternoon, I shall ask her to state orally in open court an address for service so that a means of communication with her is clearly established. I shall also ask her to go to the Registry before she next appears in court and there file a notice of address with which I am sure she will receive any necessary assistance.

4 The first of the documents that she has submitted to me, entitled Submission, makes complaints about various portions of my judgment and what she perceives as omissions from it. I have read her document. Largely it asks me to make findings other than those that I made, which I shall not do at this stage. Insofar as it complains about omissions, I do not deem that those omissions need to be remedied. There is one exception to this. In paragraph [4] of my judgment appears the statement,

“During 1967 [the company] was showing losses of about $1,000 per week.”

She says that this ought be $1,000 per day. I have checked the piece of evidence in reliance on which I included that statement in my judgment. That statement is indeed of a loss of $1,000 per day, rather than $1,000 per week. The incorrect statement in paragraph [4] is an inadvertent error. I shall effect a correction to my judgment and the corrected judgment will shortly be available on the Court's web site. The parties can rest assured that the fact that the statement appeared in incorrect form in my judgment had no effect whatever upon my decision of the case. That disposes of the applications in the document entitled Submission. I do not otherwise accede to those applications.

5 The other documents I have been given are the documents entitled Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission and Schedule A of Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission. They are brought forward by way of submission today by Mrs Morris. It is indicated at the foot of the Plaintiff’s Supplementary Submission that the author is Mr Bob Morris, her brother in law. The fact that it is avowedly written by somebody else, so far as I am concerned, does not prevent its use by Mrs Morris as a submission before me. The document is divided into a number of sections by headings.

6 Under the first heading, "Introduction", various complaints are made about various lawyers involved in the case. This is matter that I have not previously seen adverted to. I make no comment about the validity or invalidity of those complaints. They are matters which could not have been brought before me at the trial as relevant to the decision of the issues then before me. The less can they be brought before me now as relevant to any function I have to perform. That is all that I have to say about them.

7 The balance of the material appearing under the headings "Conspiracy", "Credibility", "Damages" and "The 11th Defendant" and "Additional Conclusions and Appropriate Orders" is matter that I have not previously seen, but which has a relationship to matter previously referred to before me. The document bears the date 11 August 2002. At the end of the plaintiff's oral submissions before me at the trial, Mr J J Priestley of counsel announced that his instructions for the plaintiff expired with the completion of those oral submissions, as did those of his instructing solicitor, Mr J H Maxwell. He asked for leave to withdraw, but also sought leave for Mr Bob Morris to address me further. I asked Mr Priestley the nature of the submissions which Mr Morris wished to put. Upon being told by Mr Priestley the nature of those submissions, I indicated that I should not grant the leave asked for. The Plaintiff’s Supplementary Submission would seem to have been in existence at that time and would seem to have been the basis of the matter that Mr Bob Morris wished to put at the time, although I was asked for leave for oral address and was not told that the matter was reduced to writing. I have been asked to read this Submission and I have read it, as I have read all four of the documents that have been laid before me. In essence, nothing can be done about the submissions in those latter portions of the document prepared by Mr Bob Morris. I have announced my decision and given reasons for it. It is true that I have not yet made any order, nor has any order been entered. However, the material that Mr Morris sought to lay before me is not anything that would have changed in any way the decision that I came to and, in those circumstances, there is no need for me to give further consideration as to whether or not there is any case for my withdrawing my reasons or delaying beyond today the making of the substantive orders indicated at the end of my judgment.

8 I make the following orders:

1 Give judgment for the defendants on the plaintiff's claims generally and direct the entry of that judgment.

2 Argument on costs fixed for 28 April 2003 at 10am before me.

3 Direct that the parties serve any affidavits on which they intend to rely on costs as follows: plaintiff on or before 20 March 2003; defendants on or before 3 April 2003.

4 Note that the plaintiff gives to the Court the undertaking contained in the undertaking document initialled by me and placed with the papers up to and including 28 April 2003.

5 Liberty to restore on 72 hours’ notice.

**********

Last Modified: 03/18/2003