Piepkorn v Hockley

This matter concerned an application by the respondent, Hockley, to dismiss the applicant's, Piepkorn's, application for special leave to appeal. The respondent sought orders that the applicant take all necessary steps to have the matter listed for hearing, and failing that, that her application for special leave to appeal be struck out. The respondent's summons was filed on 8 March 1990.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the applicant had failed to comply with the rules of the Court regarding the prosecution of her application for special leave to appeal, and if so, whether those failures warranted the dismissal of her application. Specifically, the respondent contended that the applicant had not appointed counsel as required, and had not properly served the appeal books with exhibits in accordance with the rules.

The Court considered the respondent's submissions that the applicant had not appointed counsel and had not served appeal books that complied with the index settled by the registry. However, the Court noted that the rules did not strictly require the appointment of counsel, but rather that the application be made by counsel. Regarding the appeal books, the Court was informed that while they contained additional material not in the settled index, all matters referred to in the index were present. The Court concluded that there was no substantive defect or lack of material in the appeal books.