Piepkorn v Hockley

[1990] HCATrans 181

A,r -!.)1,~USTRALIA,,~ --~)'~-«((('-'-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Adelaide No A37 of 1989

B e t w e e n

HENRIETTE PIEPKORN

Applicant

and

BRONTE J. HOCKLEY

Respondent

Application to dismiss for

want of prosecution

BRENNAN J

(In Chambers)

Piepkorn 1 21/8/90

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT ADELAIDE ON TUESDAY, 21 AUGUST 1990, AT 9.30 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR M. FRAYNE: If Your Honour pleases, I appear for the

respondent in the application for special leave but

the applicant in relation to the application before

you. (instructed by Wallmans).

HIS HONOUR:	Yes, Mr Frayne.
MS PIEPKORN:	Your Honour, I am the applicant in this

matter.

MR FRAYNE:  Your Honour, as I have indicated, this is the

respondent's application in relation to an application for special leave to appeal by

Ms Piepkorn.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR FRAYNE:	Your Honour, the applicant is seeking orders in relation to the application for special leave to
appeal.  The affidavits before you disclose that an
application for special leave to appeal was
instituted in September of 1989 and that there are
a number of matters which are required to have been done by the rules which have not been done by the
applicant.
HIS HONOUR:	What is your - you read a summons, I take it,

and some supporting affidavits, is that so, Mr

Frayne?

MR FRAYNE:  Yes, I do, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well, give us your material if you would,

please.

MR FRAYNE:  Thank you. The summons is seeking that the

applicant forthwith do all such things as may be

necessary to have the within matter listed for
hearing. Secondly, that should the applicant fail
to have the matter set down within a reasonable

time, that the applicant's application for special

leave to appeal be struck out.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, and that is the summons which was filed on

20 March 1990, is that right?

MR FRAYNE: Yes, from my information it was filed in the

Adelaide registry on 8 March 1990.

HIS HONOUR:  I see. Well, in all events, it seems to be the

same document.

MR FRAYNE:  Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Well, now, what affidavits support this

application?

Piepkorn 2 21/8/90

MR FRAYNE:  There is an affidavit of Mary Annette Venning

sworn on 8 March 1990 and a subsequent affidavit of

Margaret Leonie Byrnes sworn on 13 August 1990.

HIS HONOUR:	Yes.
MR FRAYNE:	At the time the application was taken out, the

affidavit of Mary Annette Venning was filed in

support. There have been some changes since then

and I would seek to refer Your Honour to the

subsequent affidavit of Margaret Leonie Byrnes of

13 August 1990.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, now, what is outstanding to be

done?

MR FRAYNE:  There are a number of matters outstanding. The

applicant has not appointed counsel as is required

by Order 69A rule 11.

HIS HONOUR:  It is not required to appoint counsel, the

application can be made only by counsel.

MR FRAYNE:  Yes. Well, to arrange for counsel to appear on

her behalf in relation to the application on - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, the matter has not been listed for

hearing as yet, has it?

MR FRAYNE:	I am instructed that it has not been listed for hearing because no arrangements have been made in
relation to - or one of the reasons is that no
arrangements have been made for that to occur.

HIS HONOUR: Well, the answer to that is to list it and see

what happens.

MR FRAYNE:	Yes.
HIS HONOUR:	Are there any other defects?

MR FRAYNE:  The applicant has not served the appeal books

with the exhibits as required by Order 69A rule

7 ( 6) •

HIS HONOUR:	In what respect has she failed to comply?
MR FRAYNE:	The applicant has served appeal books which

contain exhibits which are not in accord with the

index settled by the registry.

HIS HONOUR: You mean, she has filed more than she had to?

MR FRAYNE:  She has filed information which is in addition

to the settled index in relation to the matter and

the appeal books that have been filed do not comply

Piepkorn 21/8/90

with the index because some of the information is

not therein contained.

HIS HONOUR:	What is that? What is lacking?
MR FRAYNE:	The appeal books contain a quantity of material

which is not part of the settled index and I can

take - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, I understand that there is more in there

than the index requires - - -

MR FRAYNE:	Yes, that is so.
HIS HONOUR:	- - -but you said that there was something

lacking. If there is something more that has to be

there, then that can be dealt with by way of costs

if need be, but so far as the lacking is concerned,

we need to have some details of that.

MR FRAYNE: Yes. Each of the matters referred to in the

settled index are there in some form, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Well, is there any defect in what is there?

MR FRAYNE:	Only the additional information.
HIS HONOUR:	So, there is nothing lacking.
MR FRAYNE:	No.

HIS HONOUR: Well, there is nothing lacking in the appeal

books and the matter has not been listed yet.

MR FRAYNE:  No, it has not.

HIS HONOUR: Well, now, where is the failure to comply?

MR FRAYNE:  Yes. I understand that the matter has not been

listed because of the fact that the appeal books

have contained information not in accord with the

settled index and because the applicant has not

notified or appointed counsel for the appeal.

The last matter is that the appeal books that

have been served do not comply with the index as
settled by the registry on the basis of the

information that I have already given the Court,

that is, that there is information in addition to

the settled index.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. Well, do any of these matters affect the

ability of the Court to deal with the matter when

it comes on for an application or cause any

embarrassment to your side?

Piepkorn 4 21/8/90

MR FRAYNE: Well, the respondent is anxious for the matter

to be resolved in some manner before this Court.

The information that has been provided to me by way

of instructions is that the matter has not been

listed before this Court because the matters that I

have referred to have resulted in it not being

listed, so the respondent is anxious to ensure that

the rules are complied with to ensure that the

matter can come before this Court to be determined

in some manner.

HIS HONOUR:  I understand that, but it seems to me that the

rules have been complied with, and then some. So

that, at the moment, I do not see any foundation

for the application.

MR FRAYNE:  Yes. I cannot advance anything further in

relation to the matter, Your Honour.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes, I understand the problem. Ms Piepkorn, I

do not think I need to worry you too much about this

application.

MS PIEPKORN:  Your Honour, I would just like to explain

something to the Court.	I do apologize for not
having a counsellor to represent me.	I have

applied to different counsellors and they all

refuse to represent me. I sent to the High Court

an action that I have got going in the district

court; it is 4169 of 89, from a solicitor firm,

Frederick Templeton Evans, where he made a complete

judgment and refused to follow my instructions.

Now, this matter is in the district court at the

moment.

Now, when I put my application into the

supreme court about Mr Hockley, it was on a result

of some evidence given in case 991 of 1984 where I

was going against Primary Industries for causing an

accident in 1982 against me which was premeditated.

Now, these two medical practitioners - I have it in

the book, in book form, here - it is from Dr - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Piepkorn, I do not want to interrupt you

when you are going to say something that is

relevant, but I will interrupt you if you are going

to go on to something that does not matter for the

purposes of this application.

Now, just listen to me for a moment. The

problem about this application now, this morning,

is whether or not this application in the blue

book - you know the blue book that you produced?

MS PIEPKORN: Yes, I do.

Piepkorn 5 21/8/90

HIS HONOUR:  Whether that can go on and be heard by this

Court.

MS PIEPKORN:	Yes, Sir.
HIS HONOUR:	Now, there seems to have been some difficulty

in getting it listed because applications for

special leave to appeal have to be made by counsel.

MS PIEPKORN:	Yes, Sir.
HIS HONOUR:	Now, we cannot have the case going on year

after year while you have other litigation or while

you have difficulty getting counsel. We would have

to bring it to a point.

MS PIEPKORN: Sir, the situation was, I brought the fact

about the two plaintiffs that the Full Court of the

South Australian Supreme Court did not handle with

because the trial judge in case 2504 accepted two

plaintiffs. I put it to court, if he substantiates

the written admission that Wallmans sent me, if he

substantiates it in court, that the trial judge

carry out judicial duties and if he did admit to

it, that he caused me grievous bodily harm and, as

I said, I have certain evidence in this book I was

not allowed to hand up. The trial judge refused to

take it; like, for instance - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Piepkorn, what has that got to do with this

Court hearing the application for special leave?

MS PIEPKORN:	Because the ground is, Miss Byrnes says that certain material in the book does not confirm with
the index.

HIS HONOUR: You do not have to worry about that any more.

MS PIEPKORN: No. Well, anyway, like I said, it was about

these two plaintiffs.

HIS HONOUR:  But why are you saying it? What has it got to

do with hearing this application?

MS PIEPKORN: 

Because she is like - she is trying to take

over the case again like she did with the other
case.

HIS HONOUR: 

I see.

MS PIEPKORN: 

And I never - like, I have got an appearance

paper here that the Full Court would not accept

when I explained to them that Wallmans state they
were acting for the plaintiff. Now, I never

employed Wallmans and nor did I go in for

Limitations Act.

Piepkorn 6 21/8/90

Now, the case was dismissed on the Limitations Act, as Justice King explained to me and I was

supposed to pay the costs for their offence.	Now,
she wrote a lot of things in there, with her

papers, that - what she wants. It does not even

concern the fact what I am going to the High Court

about; I am going about the fact that the

supreme court's two plaintiffs.

HIS HONOUR:	Now, Ms Piepkorn, if we were to list this case for hearing on Thursday, is there any reason why we
should not hear it on Thursday?
MS PIEPKORN:	No, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	Now, you understand that if the case is listed

for hearing on Thursday, this Court will only hear

the matter is you have counsel representing you.

MS PIEPKORN: Sir, I cannot get counsel.

HIS HONOUR: Well, that is a great difficulty I appreciate,

but the rules of this Court require the application

to be made by counsel.

MS PIEPKORN: Sir, it states in the High Court Rules too, I

can represent myself if I do not get counsel and I

have - I mean, I was made into poverty from these

court dealings and, as I can say, I can name you

one solicitor - I even contacted a solicitor in

Canberra to represent me. When I sent him the

material and I sent him the material where Wallmans

stated they wanted a solicitor, he said to me, "He

can't take any action against this on the grounds

of legal.ethics".

Now, I do not get no solicitor whatsoever. I

have had several solicitors I have talked to in

South Australia; they all refuse to go with me.

Now, I mean, I am not going to end up having to go

to gaol for an offence that they committed on me

and I am - I have tried so hard to get a solicitor

and I just do not get one so - - -

HIS HONOUR:  Ms Piepkorn, is there any reason why we should

not have this case listed on Thursday?

MS PIEPKORN:	No, sir.
HIS HONOUR:	That is, if we can reach it on Thursday; it may go over to Friday.

MS PIEPKORN: That is right, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Now, when I say listed, you should understand

that when it is listed you would ordinarily be

Piepkorn 21/8/90

required to have counsel to appear for you and if

you do not, then the case may be struck out.

MS PIEPKORN: Sir, it is like I said, I have these great

difficulties. I mean, the solicitor who took the

case in the first time to the supreme court, 991 of

1984, when I approached him to continue on with me,

h~ refused. I have applied to the Legal Aid; they

refuse. I have written to the legal complaints

committee and the Law Society, they refuse.

Interstate, they refuse. Everyone refuses to

handle this matter. Now, I mean, I am trying my

best. I had to learn the medical aspect, I had to learn the legal aspect to bring before the courts

and, I mean, I just do not see any reason what is

so legal about the other firm taking a case over,

the other firm claiming that they are my solicitors

and then I have to pay for their offence and then

the Court refuses to listen to this fact because I

have not got any counsel when they will not, in

this State, take any action because of their legal

ethics.

HIS HONOUR: Well, let me explain to you what the reason is

for this: this Court has a lot of work to do and

in order to do its work it has to have people

giving it the assistance that it needs to do it.

That means that those people have to have some

qualifications to know what the legal problems are

and it is no offence to those who do not have legal

qualifications to say that they do not have those

skills. Now, that is the reason why the Court has

this rule about having to be represented by

counsel, so that we can do the work.

Now, if we list it on Thursday, there is

nothing that I can do to change the rule of the

Court which says that you must have a counsel to make your application. If it is listed on Thursday

and you do not have a counsel, your application may

be dismissed.

MS PIEPKORN: Sir, can I ask - say something to you?. I

spoke to a certain solicitor who I approached in

the first place after the case, 991 of 1984, was

finished and he is a pretty well known solicitor,

and he stated to me I can go to the High Court

myself; I can represent myself in the High Court,

too. He says he cannot do it because of ethical

reasons and I can give you all the lawyer firm

names; they all refuse to go with me.	I have done
my best.	I have got the South Australian statutes

of law books and I know that this new case that

developed from the evidence from the other case was

supposed to be heard in the supreme court and I

have got the law books and I have got the rulings and I know the High Court rule book states that I

Piepkorn 8 21/8/90

need a solicitor, but the thing is, if I cannot get

them and they refuse to go, it is not fair that you

just automatically put a person out on account of

this fact, if they cannot get legal representation.

I am doing my best and my hardest to please the

Court and I just have to always brunt up the other

thing and I get the fact that the other party is

allowed to say that they want the limitations and

then say it was me and I have to pay for them and

things like that.	I know, it is very hard.	I
know - - -

HIS HONOUR: Well, now, it is not for me to decide this

morning what should happen when the case comes on.

That has to be decided by the Court when the case

does come on. What I do want to know is, whether

you would like to have the case listed for

Thursday?

MR PIEPKORN:	I would like it listed.
HIS HONOUR:	Even though you know that the problem will then

be ventilated about whether or not you have

counsel?

MS PIEPKORN:  I know, sir. I would like it listed; that is

right.

HIS HONOUR:  All right. Now, what do you say to that, Mr

Frayne?

MR FRAYNE:	I have no objection to that course.
MS PIEPKORN:	What time, sir?

HIS HONOUR:  Very well. Well, then, it will be listed with

the other applications for special leave which are

to commence on Thursday if the Court's timetable is

running according to schedule.

MS PIEPKORN: Yes.

HIS HONOUR:  You would have to keep in touch with the

Registrar to discover whether or not it is coming

on on Thursday because it may be that it will come

on on Friday.

Now, when you do that, it would be desirable

for you to look at the rule of the High Court,

which is called Order 69A rule 11 and I will read

it to you, but it would be as well for you to look

at it before Thursday. It reads as follows:

An application for special leave to appeal shall be made to a Full Court by counsel.

Piepkorn 9 21/8/90

Now, you have a look at that and you work out what

you can do about it because the case will be listed

this week and that problem will be raised and you

will have to deal with it, all right?

MS PIEPKORN: All right, sir, thank you.

HIS HONOUR: Very well, the matter will stand adjourned

until - or the application will be dismissed, will

it not, Mr Frayne?

MR FRAYNE:  Yes, sir.

HIS HONOUR:  Yes. The application will be dismissed and the

matter will be listed on Thursday next.

AT 9.51 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Piepkorn 10 21/8/90