R v P

[2002] HCATrans 494

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S159 of 2001

B e t w e e n -

MHP

Applicant

and

DIRECTOR‑GENERAL DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY SERVICES

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
McHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 11 OCTOBER 2002, AT 11.21 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MS V.A. HARTSTEIN:   May it please the Court, I appear for the respondent.  (instructed by the Legal Services Unit, Department of Community Services)

GAUDRON J:   Ms Hartstein, there has been a notice of motion filed by the applicant in these proceedings seeking an adjournment, although I do not seem to have that notice of motion.  Thank you.  Have you been served with that?

MS HARTSTEIN:    Not by the applicant but the Registrar ‑ ‑ ‑

GAUDRON J:   Well, of course, you could not have been served by the applicant.

MS HARTSTEIN:   Well, we could have been served by fax but the Registrar has provided me with a copy of his application for an adjournment.  That application is opposed, your Honour.

GAUDRON J:   Yes, thank you.  Ms Hartstein, I do not wish to hear you further on that.

We have considered the notice of motion and we have read the material filed in support of it and we see no connection between the proceedings in the Supreme Court and the issue that would be determined by this application, and we do not propose to grant that adjournment.

MS HARTSTEIN:   Thank you, your Honour.

GAUDRON J:   That being so, the applicant is, of course, required to rely on his written submissions in this matter.  But we will have him called just in case there is any appearance.

COURT OFFICER:    No response, your Honour.

GAUDRON J:   Yes, thank you.  Ms Hartstein, there is only one matter I wish to raise with you and that is this:  the child in question has been returned to England?

MS HARTSTEIN:   Yes, she is not in Australia and has not been, as far as I am aware, since about 9 June 2000.

GAUDRON J:   Yes, thank you.

We have carefully considered the summary of argument and reply filed by the applicant for special leave in this matter.  That applicant is unrepresented.  He seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Family Court dismissing his appeal against an order for the return of his daughter to the United Kingdom.  We have been informed by Ms Hartstein that the child has now returned to that country and accordingly, no useful purpose can be served by the proposed appeal.

Further, we are of the view that the arguments which the applicant wishes to raise are without sufficient merit to justify the grant of special leave. 

As the special leave application was brought out of time, the appropriate order is the application to extend time be refused.  There is no sufficient reason why it should not be refused with costs.  Accordingly, the application is refused with costs.

MS HARTSTEIN:   Thank you, your Honour.

GAUDRON J:   We will now adjourn to reconstitute.

AT 11.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED