Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee
[2012] WASCA 5
•12 JANUARY 2012
NEIL -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2012] WASCA 5
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2012] WASCA 5 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | 12/01/2012 | ||
| Case No: | CACV:33/2011 | 20 DECEMBER 2011 | |
| Coram: | PULLIN JA NEWNES JA | 20/12/11 | |
| 7 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Application dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | PETER CHRISTISON NEIL LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE JULIUS SKINNER |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application for a stay of the appeal Turns on own facts No new point of principle |
Legislation: | Nil |
Case References: | Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577 Neil and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASAT 25 Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASCA 48 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : NEIL -v- LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2012] WASCA 5 CORAM : PULLIN JA
- NEWNES JA
- Appellant
AND
LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE
First Respondent
JULIUS SKINNER
Second Respondent
(Page 2)
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : JUSTICE J A CHANEY (PRESIDENT)
Citation : NEIL and LEGAL PROFESSION COMPLAINTS COMMITTEE [2011] WASAT 25
File No : VR 140 of 2009
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application for a stay of the appeal - Turns on own facts - No new point of principle
Legislation:
Nil
Result:
Application dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : In person
First Respondent : Ms P E Le Miere
Second Respondent : Mr D J Pratt
Solicitors:
Appellant : In person
First Respondent : Legal Profession Complaints Committee
Second Respondent : Jackson McDonald
(Page 3)
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577
Neil and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASAT 25
Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASCA 48
(Page 4)
1 REASONS OF THE COURT: On 20 December 2011, as a result of a Registrar's Notice to Attend, the appellant was required to show cause why the appeal should not be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) for noncompliance with the rules and the order of Registrar Bush dated 24 October 2011. The court also heard the appellant's application for a stay of proceedings.
2 After hearing the appellant's oral submissions the court made orders:
(1) dismissing the appeal unless by 4.00 pm 13 January 2012 the appellant filed and served appeal book indexes complying with r 32(9) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules;
(2) dismissing the application for a stay of proceedings;
(3) that the appellant pay the first respondent the costs of the day fixed at $450.00 and payable by 13 January 2012;
(4) that the appellant pay the second respondent the costs of the day fixed at $450.00 and payable by 13 January 2012.
3 These are the reasons for those orders. The background is that the appellant applied for leave to appeal against the decision of the State Administrative Tribunal (tribunal). In those proceedings the appellant had sought leave to apply for a review of a decision by the first respondent to dismiss complaints against three practitioners. The Complaints Committee found each of the complaints to be unreasonable. The tribunal examined the role that the solicitors played in an action in the Supreme Court, out of which the complaints arose. The tribunal agreed with the committee that the complaints by Mr Neil lacked any reasonable basis and refused leave to proceed with the review: see Neil and Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASAT 25.
4 The appellant appealed against the tribunal's decision on 8 March 2011. The right of appeal is restricted by s 105 of the State Administrative Tribunal Act 2004 (WA).
5 The appellant has 15 grounds of appeal which run to 21 pages. The appellant's case was deficient because r 32(9) Court of Appeal Rules required a document titled 'draft appeal book indexes' to set out for each of the three parts of the appeal book a draft index of the proposed contents of the part, being the documents required by r 38 to be in the part. At a hearing before a registrar on 20 May 2011, there was an appointment to settle the appeal book indexes pursuant to r 36. The appellant
(Page 5)
- acknowledged at the hearing of this appeal, that the indexes could not then be settled because many documents referred to in the appellant's submissions were not readily identifiable in the green appeal book index (ts 13). The appellant agreed with the registrar that he should file indexes complying with the rules. As a result, the registrar made orders that the appellant file and serve a clean copy of the appeal book indexes by 8 July 2011 and the conference to settle the appeal book papers was adjourned to 8 August 2011. The conference was later adjourned to 15 September 2011.
6 On 18 July 2011 a registrar extended time for filing of the indexes to 29 July 2011. A further request was made for an extension of time, and on 4 August 2011, a registrar made an order extending the time for filing of the indexes to 31 August 2011. Finally, on 24 October 2011, a further extension was granted until 14 November 2011. The appellant has still not filed indexes in accordance with the rules.
7 This last extension was made in the following circumstances. In August 2011, Mrs Glasson, who sometimes assists Mr Neil, asked for a stay of the proceedings on the basis that a new complaint had been lodged with the first respondent against the second respondent and asserting that the investigation of the complaint could affect this appeal. The appellant was advised in writing by a registrar's associate on 12 August 2011, and subsequently by a registrar on 31 August 2011, that any application for a stay had to be made by way of a formal application with a supporting affidavit. Notwithstanding that neither clean indexes nor an application for a stay had been filed, a registrar held an appointment on 15 September 2011 in order to ascertain how the appellant wished to proceed. The appellant was advised that he should either file the indexes so that the appeal could proceed, or file an application for a stay.
8 An application for a stay of this appeal and a supporting affidavit were filed on 6 October 2011 and referred to Pullin JA. Pullin JA referred the matter back to the registrar with a note reading:
Please write to Mr Neil and advise that it is his appeal and there is no basis for a 'stay' of his own appeal. If he would like an extension of time to take steps in the appeal then he should apply to the registrar for an extension.
9 Consequently, the order dated 24 October 2011 for an extension of time for filing the appeal book indexes to 14 November 2011 was made.
(Page 6)
10 Feeling free, as the appellant does, to write to persons in high position, the appellant then wrote to the Chief Justice about the appeal. This eventually resulted in the Chief Justice writing to the appellant advising that the Chief Justice did not propose to engage in correspondence with the appellant in relation to the proceedings.
11 As a result of the appellant's insistence that the application for a stay be heard, the application was listed for hearing on 20 December 2011. The affidavit in support exhibited letters the appellant had written or Mrs Glasson had written to, among others, the Prime Minister of New Zealand, the Prime Minister of Australia, the Premier of Western Australia, the Deputy Premier of Victoria, the Premier of New South Wales and the now Governor of Western Australia. There was nothing in the material which justified any delay in the conduct and disposal of this appeal.
12 The appellant began his oral submissions by contending that Pullin JA had prejudged the issue and cited Concrete Pty Ltd v Parramatta Design and Developments Pty Ltd [2006] HCA 55; (2006) 229 CLR 577 (ts 3). There is no basis for the contention that Pullin JA was actually biased or that from his conduct there could be any reasonable apprehension of bias. The observation made by Pullin JA upon referral to him of the stay application suggested a helpful and practical way for the appellant to delay the proceedings if there was some basis for doing so. Pullin JA's note to the registrar did not constitute an order dismissing the stay application. Upon the appellant's insistence that the application be heard, it was listed for hearing. The appellant's application for Pullin JA to disqualify himself had no merit and is dismissed.
13 The appellant spent most of his time during oral submissions, dealing with the complaint that lies deep in the heart of all of Mr Neil's original reasons for litigating and that is the complaint he has about a former business partner in relation to a company in which they were both directors. Mr Neil appears to be obsessed about this. He has lost sight of his objective by concentrating much of his attention on other people, particularly lawyers who have been acting in related proceedings. This is revealed by this litigation and other litigation in this court. The court pointed out that his complaint about his former business associate had nothing to do with whether he should or should not file appeal book indexes in this appeal (ts 7).
14 Mr Neil also made oral submissions that there should be a stay of proceedings because he asserted he is entitled to an order that the appeal
(Page 7)
- should go to mediation (ts 11). It appears that he thinks that this justifies him doing nothing to progress the appeal to a hearing. This is an argument he has run before in relation to another appeal: see Neil v Legal Profession Complaints Committee [2011] WASCA 48. This appeal is not amenable to mediation. The appellant is not 'entitled' to have a mediation.
15 The appellant's generalised assertion that he is investigating whether additional documents exist relating to his complaint about his former business associate is no basis for delaying the disposal of these proceedings. The appellant has had a very long time to file the appeal book indexes and the orders made allowed him an overly generous extension of time to comply with the rules. Costs followed the event and were fixed.
0
4
1