Raybos Australia Pty Limited & Anor v Tectran Corporation Pty Limited

Raybos Australia Pty Limited and Arunta Properties (NSW) Pty Limited (the applicants) sought special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia against decisions made by Toohey J concerning taxation matters. The dispute arose from an application for a stay made by the applicants in 1986, which was heard by Mr Justice Wilson. This application was refused, and costs were ordered against the applicants. Subsequently, there was an appeal against the taxation of two of those costs bills.

The primary legal issues before the High Court were whether the proceedings before Mr Justice Wilson were conducted in open court or in chambers, and whether the applicants had a right of appeal or required special leave. The applicants contended that the proceedings before Mr Justice Wilson were erroneously held in chambers when they should have been in open court. The court also considered the timeliness of the appeal, given that a notice of appeal had not been filed within the prescribed time.

The High Court, through Brennan J, referred to section 34 of the Judiciary Act, which grants the High Court jurisdiction to hear appeals from judgments of a Justice exercising original jurisdiction, whether in court or chambers. However, Brennan J also pointed to Order 70 of the High Court Rules, which deals with appeals and requires a notice of appeal to be filed within a specific timeframe. The applicants acknowledged that they were out of time for lodging a notice of appeal and sought an extension of time.

The applicants' counsel indicated that they were seeking special leave to appeal, acknowledging that if an appeal lay as of right, they would not need it. The court noted that the applicants were out of time for filing a notice of appeal and that they were making an application for an extension of time. The applicants' counsel explained that the delay in their preparation was partly due to the applicant being principally a litigant in person.