Sampson v Sampson

[1997] HCATrans 340

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M85 of 1996

B e t w e e n -

LESLIE ALLAN SAMPSON

Applicant

and

JOAN ELSINORE SAMPSON

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GAUDRON J
McHUGH J
GUMMOW J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT MELBOURNE ON FRIDAY, 14 NOVEMBER 1997, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GAUDRON J:   The Court has been provided with a certificate from the Deputy Registrar to the effect that she has been informed by Maurice Blackburn & Co, solicitors for the respondent in this matter, that the respondent does not intend to make any representations at the hearing of the application for special leave to appeal and will submit to any order of the Court save as to costs.  In addition, we have been informed by the Deputy Registrar that the applicant in this matter no longer wishes to supplement his written summary of argument with oral submissions.

The applicant seeks an order restricting publication of the names in this matter.  We see no reason why that order should be made.  The application in that regard is refused.  The applicant also seeks an extension of time within which to bring this application.  The Court considers that it should consider the merits of the application and proceeds accordingly.

At the forefront of the applicant’s argument is the proposition that he was denied natural justice at first instance and in the Full Family Court.  This contention is without merit, the applicant having been accorded full opportunity to meet the case against him and to put whatever submissions might properly be put.  The fact, if it be the fact, that at first instance his counsel did not present matters which the applicant wished to be put does not mean that there was a denial of natural justice.  Particularly is that so if the matters were not relevant to the issue to be decided, as are most of the matters of which the applicant now complains. 

One of the issues now raised by the applicant is that of the jurisdiction of the Family Court.  The applicant clearly submitted to the jurisdiction of that court by consenting to the orders the breach of which gave rise to this application.  The other matters of which the applicant complains raise no question of general importance warranting the grant of special leave.  There will be an extension of time in this matter, but special leave is refused.

AT 9.36 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED