Re Mr Justice Lockhart; Ex parte Gamester Pty Limited

[1991] HCATrans 199

~

.

• ~

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S65 of 1990

B e t w e e n -

GAMESTER PTY LIMITED and

BARBARA ANN CAMERON

Appellants

and

HIS HONOUR JUSTICE LOCKHART

Respondent

BRENNAN J
DEANE J

DAWSON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY. 7 AUGUST 1991. AT 11.33 AM

Gamester 1 7/8/91

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

BRENNAN J: Are you appearing in this matter, Ms Cameron?

MS B.A. CAMERON:  Yes, I am appearing for Gamester Pty

Limited and for myself.	I am sorry to say that I
am not a lawyer but this is a legal aid matter.	I

understand that you have given permission for me to

address you and if that is so I am grateful, thank

you.

BRENNAN J: Yes, Ms Cameron, you are entitled to appear if

you wish to do so.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, thank you. I have also been told

that - - -

BRENNAN J:  Mr Solicitor, are you involved in this matter in

any way? No.	We are grateful for your appearance.
Yes, Ms Cameron.

MS CAMERON:  I have also been told that there is only half

an hour allocated to this so I have confined myself

to the bare minimum.

BRENNAN J:	You are not under any time restraint.
MS CAMERON:	I see, yes.

BRENNAN J: Only under restraints of relevancy.

MS CAMERON: Well, I am not good at that, I am afraid.

Unfortunately we did not have as much notice as we
had hoped and we have found a barrister who is kind

and benevolent who said he would act for us but in

the time we could not find a solicitor who would

act without payment. Anyway, I will do my best.

But one of the problems I do have as an unqualified

person is that I am prone to irrelevancies so

perhaps if you could just bear with me.

BRENNAN J: Well, you understand that the nature of your

proceeding is an appeal from the judgment of

Her Honour Justice Gaudron?

MS CAMERON:  Yes, I have had some advice. I have been

fortunate to have some advice as to what the issue

is and I understand that I am to confine myself to

whether or not she erred in her judgment.

BRENNAN J: That is so.

MS CAMERON:  We say that the issue is not whether or not the

court has discretion to dismiss a matter before it

but whether or not the court ought to first hear

the evidence before exercising its discretion to

dismiss the matter. And we say that the court

ought to first hear the evidence before deciding

whether or not it should exercise its.discretion.

Gamester 2 7/8/91

This court referred in the case of Annetts v

Mccann, at page 599, to the common law right to be

heard, where there is going to be a judgment that is adverse.

What I wo·uld like to do, if I may, is just

take a minute to put the issue into some context

because I feel that - I think that is the whole

point that I want to try and make is that something

cannot be judged, a part of something just cannot

serve the purpose of representing the whole of

something and I would just like to take a minute to

put it into context. And if I could perhaps hand

up this magazine which is the subject of the whole

dispute. It is the only one I have left so I would

ask if I could have it back. The reason I would

like you to have a look at it is just to see the

public importance of the magazine.

The absurdity of the situation which has

resulted is that one arm of the Government, the

Department of Primary Industries and the Department

of Agriculture, helped prepare this magazine by

providing editorial material and another arm of the

same Government, the federal Attorney-General's

Department, has destroyed it by taking back our

legal aid.

If I could just quickly explain that I was one

of a number of small publishers publishing into the

rural industry and I was approached by the managing

director of Rural Press, Mr John Parker, who said

that if I did not sell to him at a greatly reduced

price he would start up an identical publication at

cut prices and put me out of business.

He did exactly that, and I felt compelled to

sell to him at about one-tenth of the price that I

could have got for the magazine from another

publisher who was interested in it. A contract was

entered into which provided that he would continue

to run the magazine for at least a year and I would

be employed as its managing editor. The morning

after the contract was signed he said that he was

not going to publish the magazine, it was going to

be closed down.

In this material you have here there is an

affldavit of Professor Robert Officer of the Graduate School of Management, University of

Melbourne, who gives evidence to the effect that

the buying up and closing down of magazines is
consistent with an intention to preserve a

monopoly, and there are other affidavits contained

within this appeal book of advertisers who say that

they have had their prices put up 300 per cent in

Gamester 3 7/8/91

one go and been told to like it or lump it because

there is nowhere else for them to advertise.

DEANE J:  Ms Cameron, if you are unhappy, and you obviously

are, with Justice Lockhart's decision, the ordinary

course of challenging it would be by appealing to

the Full Court of the Federal Court.

It is only in an extraordinary case that this

Court would, as it were, intervene in its

discretion by a prerogative writ to short circuit

the ordinary appellate process.

I am just trying to help you by indicating

that that is the starting point of your problem

here.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, I agree with you entirely, but we have

followed that course and I have an affidavit here

which again the Registrar told me to hand up in

Court, which sets out what happened to the appeal process. We did pursue the normal appeal process and an appeal was not heard for a number of

reasons. One of them was that we were not advised

of the hearing date, and then we applied for an

adjournment on medical grounds because I had very

bad pleurisy and it was heard, notwithstanding that

application for an adjournment.

So we did go through the appeal process and

this affidavit sets it out and it encloses the

transcript of what happened at the appeal hearings.

DEANE J: If it has gone through the appeal process - -

MS CAMERON: There was never a hearing, there has never been

a hearing. Our evidence has never been heard.

DEANE J: But if the Appeal Court has dealt with it - - -

MS CAMERON: It did not hear it, you see - - -

DEANE J: It dismissed it, did it?

MS CAMERON: It is so long ago I have forgotten what

happened to it, but I will just refresh my memory.

Should I give you the copy of the affidavits?

BRENNAN J: Yes, by all means.

MS CAMERON:  Again, I am sorry that they are rambling. I

think to sum up the appeal system, the matter has

never been heard.

BRENNAN J: And why was it not heard, Ms Cameron?

Gamester 4 7/8/91

MS CAMERON:  The first time it was not heard was because,

and I stand to be corrected on this, I think it was
because I had pleurisy and I could not get there
and we sent a medical certificate, and I understood

from conversation with the associate to His Honour

Mr Justice Sheppard that it would be set down for

another day, but it was not, it was heard on that

day. I am not quite sure of the technical meaning

of the word "heard" but it came before the Court on

that day and it was stood over until the next day,

and we say that no effort was made to contact us

and tell us that it was to be heard the next day,

because I was on a manual telephone exchange and no

calls came through to tell us that it was to be

heard the next day. I still could not have got
there the next day. And then we applied to have it
put back in the list and we had a solicitor attend

that hearing and ask if it could be put back in the

list - reinstated in the list - and the court

refused to put it back in the list, and the reason

they gave was because I had not turned up at the

first hearing.

BRENNAN J: 

Do we have anywhere in our material here the

order that was made by the Full Court dismissing
the appeal and any transcript of the proceedings in

which the application was made to restore it to the

list?

MS CAMERON: It did not ever get to the Full Court. The

history of it was that it was set down for hearing
on a day that I could not get there and a medical
certificate was sent, and we thought it would be

set down on another day, and it was stood over to

the next day and dismissed. And then we applied to

have it reinstated in the list and the court

refused to reinstate it, the reason given was

because I did not attend at the first hearing. So,

it did not get as far as the Full Bench, it was

stopped. And as to whether or not you have that

before you, the transcript of the first two

hearings are in the affidavit which I have just

handed up.

The day that the matter was to be heard, the

application to have it reinstated in the list, that

was set down on a day in which I had pleurisy and

the doctor said that I must not go to court, that I

would risk my life going to court. We had a

solicitor attend on that day and apply for an

adjournment which was refused, and they also

refused to reinstate it in the list and the reason

was given that I had not attended on the first day.

We also applied for legal aid to handle this

appeal and the appeal was heard while our

application was outstanding. We had. not received a

Gamester 7/8/91

decision from the Legal Aid Commission office when

this hearing took place.

BRENNAN J:  Ms Cameron, I see that in the transcript of the

proceedings of 27 February that you have annexed to

your last affidavit, Mr Justice Merling who was

then presiding at the Full Court said that the

registrar had complied with the direction given on

the previous day.

MS CAMERON:  Yes, well, the direction given on the previous

day was to contact us and let us know, and a

telephone call was not received on the number which

had been provided - it was a country manual

telephone exchange - and we wrote asking if we

could be provided with details of what was done to

notify us and we did not receive a reply to the

letter. About 10 days after the hearing we

received a copy of the letter which the Registrar

said the original was hand delivered to our post

office box. Well, we did not ever receive that

hand delivered letter. It never appeared in our

post office box.

BRENNAN J: Where was the post_ office box?

MS CAMERON: In Sydney. That box was collected each day,

but the original letter did not ever appear in the

box and 10 days afterwards a copy of it was posted

to us and the copy is in that material I have just

given to you, a copy of the letter. So we had no

knowledge that the hearing took place on the

27th until about 10 days after the 27th. And it

was because we were denied any avenue of appeal,

and also the Administrative Appeals Tribunal said

that they did not have jurisdiction to hear this

matter, and it was because we were advised that

there was no avenue of appeal - and we were advised

by a solicitor to take the course of seeking an

order nisi because there was no other avenue.

You see, a most extraordinary precedent has been set with this case in that legal aid can be

taken back on the basis of the same opinion on

which it was given and without any notice. If I

could just take a moment to - there are enormous

disadvantages in having a non-legal person address

you but there is also one advantage in that you

fina out what the public hear about and feel about

the access to justice and, unless you are very rich

or very poor the availability of our justice system

is negligible.

The importance of this case was that it was

legal aid to the middle class Australian, for want

of a better word, in commercial litigation, and

Rural Press now have a total monopoly of the rural

Gamester 6 7/8/91

media and there is no redress. If I had been told

by the Federal Attorney-General's Department that

we had been given legal aid but it could be taken

back at any time without any notice we would not

have continued with the litigation.

Another point I would like to make is that

Rural Press sued us, we did not start the litigation. When they purchased the magazine and

closed it down there was a considerable outcry from

the Department of Primary Industries and the

Department of Agriculture, and from advertisers who

had lost their material, and so, through a company,

through Gamester Pty Limited, I offered to

repurchase the magazine, and they agreed to sell it

back to us within the next couple of weeks at twice

the price that they had paid us, and we say that
they repudiated the contract, they carried on as if

the contract did not exist. People who phoned

Rural Press about the magazine were told that the

magazine had been closed down and that no one knew

where I was and it was not continuing.

Then they sued us for the next instalment.

They agreed to let us_ repurchase the magazine in

instalments and they sued us for the next

instalment. We were advised to cross-claim in the

Federal Court under the Trade Practices Act. But

the precedent that has been set about the legal aid

is that Minter Simpson supplied an opinion in which

they concluded:

It would seem to us reasonable for legal assistance to be provided in view of:-

(a) The reasonable prospects of

success; •••.• There are, we would submit, also

significant public interest reasons for

granting assistance -

and they go on to give the public interest reasons.

BRENNAN J:  Ms Cameron, we are not here, however, as you

will appreciate, to determine the question of legal

aid or, for that matter, even to decide whether or

not Justice Lockhart was correct· in the view which
he took of your application with regard to legal

aid_. We are concerned only to consider whether or

not it could be said that Justice Gaudron made some

mistake in holding that there was no case for

mandamus against Justice Lockhart.

MS CAMERON: Well, I have been advised that I should address

to some extent the judgment of Justice Lockhart for

this reason: that it was not that he omitted to

hear a small portion of our evidence. He did not

Gamester 7/8/91

explain the circumstances of that? hear the majority of our evidence, and can I just

DEANE J:  It is very difficult for you, but you are caught

up in legal technicalities. You see, what happened when you appealed from Justice Lockhart to the Full Court was the matter passed out of his control and

into the control of the Full Court, and that was

through your appeal. Now, what you are asking us

to do is to make an order to Justice Lockhart to

exercise jurisdiction in a matter which has reached

the appellate stage in the Full Court. I know that

is a meaningless statement to you, but we have to

abide by the rules of law or we would not be

performing our function, and it is a problem that

lies on top of the other problems. In other words,

it is a problem that Justice Gaudron may not have

been aware of when she declined the order, but

which possibly made it necessary that she declined

it in any event.

MS CAMERON: Well, the importance of Mr Justice Lockhart's

judgment is that we say he did not, in regard to
hearing our evidence, exercise his jurisdiction in
that our application for legal aid to hear the

matter was outstanding. We had not received a

decision about it. I asked for an adjournment

until that was heard, and the Legal Aid Commission
Act, section 57 I think it is, is quite clear that

there must be an automatic stay, and also I think
the Judiciary Act says that the Federal Court is

bound by State legislation where there is not

federal legislation to cover it. But he proceeded

and I had not prepared a case.

We received an affidavit from the Federal Attorney-General's Department which was about this

thick, literally, just before the hearing and I had not replied to that. I tried to rely on affidavits

which I borrowed from the main case, and

Mr Justice Lockhart refers in his judgment to the

That was correct. We were forced to continue	fact that our affidavits were largely irrelevant.
because he would not wait until the legal aid
application was heard, so I used them. And I
recall saying to him clearly at the commencement of
the hearing, "Can we rely on presenting our case
thrpugh cross-examination of Mr Wheeler on his
affidavit?" and he said yes, we could. Now, had we
been able to do that we might have had some chance,
but he would not permit me to cross-examine
Mr Wheeler in full. I started and I just worked my way through the affidavit, and I had gone a portion of the way before he stopped me.
The other problem which I thiVk is a very serious injustice is that we have been unable to

Gamester 7/8/91

get the transcript of that hearing. The lass at

the Federal Court reporting service said that

Mr Wheeler of the Federal Attorney-General's

Department had instructed her that she was not to

transcribe it. We asked this Court if we may issue

a subpoena through the High Court to get that

transcript and we were told that the High Court did

not issue subpoenas.

I feel that this matter could be very quickly resolved if we had the transcript because

Mr Justice Lockhart simply said - he said in the

beginning that he was going to allocate two days

and no more and we had to cancel a lot of

witnesses, and at four o'clock on the second day he

said, "Look, my time is up.	I am sorry I cannot
continue.	I cannot allocate any more time to this

case", and then he said he was going to dismiss it.

Now, I think that is terribly serious, and I

am not the only person who thinks it is terribly

serious. Our evidence was not put before him, and

the simple and crucial point which was not put

before him which I commenced to read was snippets

from the five opinions which were given on this

case, from Minter Simpson, from

Mr Geoffrey Taperell, from Mr Tom Jucovic, QC, from

Professor Officer and from the Trade Practices

Commission in Canberra themselves. They all said

that we had a case under section 46 of the Trade

Practices Act and that there was a strong element of public interest.

Mr Wheeler agreed with that in the first

instance and said, "Yes, you can have legal aid."

Then after the case.had commenced and was running

he literally said, "I have changed my mind about

the opinions", and he stated on oath on affidavit,

and I have it here and can read it. He said that

not one of the opinions said that there were

prospects of success. Now, that evidence has never

been examined by the court.

It is as ludicrous as if, for example, you

went to the council and got a permit to build a

house. The council gave you a permit. You had your house half up. The council came along and

sai5f, "I am sorry, I am taking the permit back.

Too bad about the half built house. Go bankrupt,

do what you like, but tough luck." It is

exactly the same situation that we have.

Mr Wheeler read the opinions. He said in the

witness box that he did not rely on any other

material other than the opinions provided to him.

In the first instance we were given legal aid on those opinions, and then half-way through the case

Gamester 7/8/91

he said, "I have changed my mind about the

opinions. I am taking your legal aid back" before

the grant was utilized.

The consequence of that has totally destroyed

my life. Before this case arose I employed people,

I paid taxes, I ran a country property, I ran a

publishing business and I contributed to the

economy of this country. Now, all that has gone

and I live on a sickness pension. And Rural Press,

a great big greedy corporation, is going from

strength to strength, fattening themselves on their

monopoly. Now, that only needs to happen in a few

more instances and we have got the answer to the

economic problems of this country.

BRENNAN J:  Ms Cameron, you appreciate I am sure that this

Court is, as Justice Deane has said to you, bound

by the rules of law governing the various

jurisdictions and the function that each court has

to perform. Our concern at this stage is to

discover whether there be any error in the judgment
of Justice Gaudron which refused you the

application that you made for an order for

mandamus.

MS CAMERON: Yes, well, I will address that now, I am sorry.

BRENNAN J: Yes. You understand that whatever the

injustices may be it is that problem alone with

which we have any power to deal.

MS CAMERON:  Yes. I think I can probably address that very

simply. I will just find her judgment in this.

Her judgment appears towards the end of this large

book, from page 254 ·on, and I think probably - she

says at page 3 that she thinks it would be a denial

of natural justice if we were denied any reasonable
opportunity to put our case. And we say we were

denied a reasonable opportunity.

Again Justice Gaudron proceeded while our

application for legal aid to handle this matter was

pending which is a contravention of the Legal Aid

Commission Act.

DEANE J: Did you ask her not to proceed?

MS CAMERON:- - Yes, I did. You see, I think the philosophy

that he who acts for himself has a fool for a

client is extremely true and added to that I have

the problem of suffering from very serious health

problems. I suffer from thrombosis, plus a stomach

ulcer, both - the stomach ulcer I have developed

since this case; since my financial situation

totally collapsed as a result of this case. And

also, I am extremely distraught. I face bankruptcy

Gamester 10 7/8/91

over this case. Because I applied for legal aid I

am going to be bankrupted. I am also being sued by

Mr Wheeler of the federal Attorney-General's

Department and I estimate he has spent

approximately $10-20,000 suing me for $420, he

says, for a transcript charge which I say the

correspondence clearly shows was covered under our

legal aid.

BRENNAN J:  I must take you back to the point we are

concerned with.

MS CAMERON:  I am sorry. Justice Gaudron says that had we

been denied a reasonable opportunity, and I say we
were denied an opportunity - Mr Justice Lockhart

simply does not know what our case was and he

refers in his judgment to the fact that he asked me

to tell him his case and to find him various

documents and I think that - I recall clearly on

the occasions when he asked me, it was like in the

afternoon of the second day, when I was feeling

particularly unwell, I was only just on my feet and

he rather formidably asked me and gave me about

half a minute to reply and it was an emotional and

physical impossibility for me to locate the

documents and find them and I say that had I been

given the opportunity I could have produced them.

Once again, I say the only way that justice

can be done in this matter is to get either the
transcript or the tape of the hearing and it seems

to me to be extraordinary that we have been denied

access to the transcript.	On page 5,
Justice Gaudron again says:

A breach of the rules of natural justice

occurs if a party is denied a reasonable

opportunity to put his or her case.

We say that our case has not been put. The story

of our legal aid has not been put before the Court,

where she says:  the story of what happened to it. If I could go to the last page, to page 6, the middle paragraph, It seems to me that there is no denial of

natural justice involved in terminating an

opportunity to be heard when the evidence

· appears not to support the relief claimed.

I have got a container here. Now, it appears that

it might have pens in it. It appears that it could

have something light in it. It rattles, it makes a

noise. It appears to have a number of things in it but there is only one way to find out what is in it

and that is to open it and examine it and look at

what is in it and that is the point on which I

Gamester 11 7/8/91

think Justice Gaudron is wrong. I think that the

Court cannot perform its function by making

decisions on how evidence appears.

MR HORLER:	Excuse me, madam, do you want some legal help?
MS CAMERON:	I would be delighted. Excuse me, this man has

just asked me if I would like some legal help.	I
do not know who you are but - - -

MR HORLER:  Your Honours, may I have leave to speak very

briefly - no, you do not know who I am.

Your Honours, I am waiting in the next matter

which is a special leave matter of Kolalich and I

have come here to argue that matter.

I have heard something of what this lady has

to say. She may have some arguable points. She

does not know who I am from Adam. As amicus

curiae, can I suggest that, not today necessarily,
but the thickets of legal aid and the other
problems in her case may yet be sorted out. I make

that offer to her. She, of course, may be ready to

argue the mandamus point on whether Justice Gaudron

is correct or not. I am certainly not and I do not

know whether, ultimately, there is anything in it,

but she may have some points and some advice of a

preliminary kind could be tendered to her. I do

not know what she or the Court wants to do with

that or whether my interruption is frowned upon

but -

DEANE J: What would you like to happen in view of what has

just been said?

MS CAMERON: Well, I do not know who this man is. He is

obviously very kind.	I would be grateful if I
could have a conversation with him.	I mean, we did

have a barrister who was prepared to come but he

understood he had to be instructed by a solicitor.

BRENNAN J: Would you wish the Court, Ms Cameron, to adjourn

further hearing of your application now until

2.15 this afternoon and that would give you an

opportunity to speak with this gentleman and see

what course you would then wish to follow.

MS CAMERON:  I would be most grateful. Would you permit him

to address you without a solicitor?

BRENNAN J: That is a matter which we can consider

at 2.15 pm. You will be interested to know that

Mr Horler is the name of the gentleman who has been

kind enough to make the offer to you.

Gamester 12 7/8/91

until 2.15 this afternoon. The Court will adjourn this application

AT 12.08 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

UNTIL LATER THE SAME DAY

UPON RESUMING AT 2.17 PM:

BRENNAN J: Yes, Mr Horler.

MR HORLER:  Your Honours, since I had something to say as

amicus curia I have had an opportunity to speak but

briefly to Ms Cameron. Ms Cameron tells me that

she is a director and shareholder of that company.

My application on her behalf is that the present

part-heard matter be adjourned.	The reasons I ask
for that are brief.

This lady's case or cases are complicated. I

do not pretend to understand them. They clearly

need a lawyer and this is no slur upon this lady's

intelligence and diligence. They need a lawyer to

sort it out. I do not know whether her matter here

today is misconceived or not and whether the target

is the correct one. Someone has to sort it out.

She has serious and disabling health problems, and

I understand that she is under the treatment of

Professor May who is the professor of surgery at

the University of Sydney; several specialist

gastro-enterologists; Dr Hew of St Vincents and

Dr Piper who is also a gastro-enterologist

practising in Mona Vale. She is not in a position

to give to me or to anyone proper instructions.

There is a bulk of paper. It is in her interest,

and dare I suggest in the Court's interest, that an

be sorted out for her to see whether or not she is adjournment be permitted to enable these matters to	entitled to legal aid so that on the next occasion,
if she does come back, she is represented by a lawyer properly informed as to the merits or
otherwise of her case or cases.

-· For those reasons - I realize it may be

inconvenient to the Court - on her behalf I urge

that the matter be adjourned part-heard.

DAWSON J: Is there prospect of her getting legal

assistance?

MR HORLER:. I am sorry, Your Honour, I cannot answer that

question. I would have thought on what she has

Gamester 13 7/8/91

told me briefly and what she said to the Court this

morning, that if her matter was struck out,

although her refusal of legal aid was then subject	to an appeal, under the New South Wales Legal
Commission Act round about section 56 or 58, that
operates as an automatic stay.

If, in fact, she did have an appeal against

the refusal of legal aid on - and I am not sure

that she did - then her matter should not have been

struck out, and at some stage someone has decided

she was eligible for legal aid. It is a matter

that has to be properly investigated, and I have

briefly tendered her some short advice in that

regard as amicus curia.

I am sorry I cannot answer that question, but

it does not look hopeless.	I cannot add more than
that.

BRENNAN J:  You are still appearing, I take it, amicus

curia?

MR HORLER:  Yes I am, Your Honour.

BRENNAN J: Then in that case, perhaps I should ask

Ms Cameron for formal affirmation of the propositions that you have - - -

MR HORLER:	Yes, I have explained this to her.
BRENNAN J:	Ms Cameron, you have heard what Mr Horler has

had to say.

MS CAMERON:  I missed the question he was asked.

BRENNAN J: You heard what Mr Horler has said?

MS CAMERON:  Yes.

BRENNAN J: And is the application that he has outlined,

namely, an application for an adjournment, the

application that you wish to make?

MS CAMERON: Yes.

BRENNAN J:  There will have to be some time within which all

these various matters are considered so that some

finality can be brought in the matter. Have you

any indication as to how long it would take?

MR HORLER:  I have tendered some advice that in my

experience with the occasional obfuscations of

legal aid in New South Wales that she is going to

need not less than eight weeks to sort this out,

and she may be having to go into hospital because

of this thrombosis and stomach condition from which

Gamester 14 7/8/91

she continues to suffer in quite a serious way. I

would hope that she could be allowed at least eight

weeks to sort out her affairs.

It may be more economical of the Court's time in the result.

BRENNAN J:  Ms Cameron, the address which appears on your

index is post office box 370, Queen Victoria

Building, Sydney, 2000. Is that the best address

to get in touch with you?

MS CAMERON:  Yes, through that address, or you can leave a

message with Galloway and Company, the law

researchers in Phillip Street in Sydney.

BRENNAN J:  It may be necessary for the Registrar to advise

you that the matter will be restored to the list if

nothing has been heard from you within a reasonable

time. The Court proposes, as at present advised,

to adjourn your application generally, but if

nothing happens within a reasonable time it may be

necessary for the Registrar to restore the matter

to the list in order to dispose of it. So it would

be desirable for you to keep in touch with the

Registrar and to advise him as to the progress that

you are making with the matter.

Very well then, the application will be

adjourned generally.

MR HORLER:  Your Honour, Ms Cameron is most anxious that I

should raise a matter with the Court and it is

briefly this. I understand that there is a summons

taken out by this lady returnable in this

jurisdiction on Monday, she tells me in

Sydney - she does not have it here today. In

short, that is a summons to enlarge and extend the
time in respect of directions made, I think, by

Mr Justice McHugh in relation to filing appeal

books and generally processing her matter. I

pointed out to her forcibly that it is not

appropriate to raise it here, but that that will

have to be raised in another place.	If for reasons
of health and lack of legal representation she is

not in a position to comply with that order on

Monday, then that application can be made on

Monday. But she has asked me and pressed me to

raise this.

BRENNAN J:-Well, you have done so, Mr Horler.

MR HORLER:	Thank you.	There is nothing more I wish to say.
Gamester	15	7/8/91

BRENNAN J:  The Court would express its gratitude to you,

Mr Horler, for the assistance you have been able to render.

AT 2.26 PM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

TO A DATE TO BE FIXED

Gamester 16 7/8/91