Snook v Registrar of Fines Enforcement Registry [No 2] - [2020] WASC 435

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
IN CHAMBERS

CITATION:   SNOOK -v- REGISTRAR OF FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY [No 2] [2020] WASC 435
CORAM:   TOTTLE J
HEARD:   4 NOVEMBER 2020
DELIVERED          :   4 NOVEMBER 2020
PUBLISHED           :   1 DECEMBER 2020
FILE NO/S:   CIV 2749 of 2018
BETWEEN:   PIPPA SNOOK
Plaintiff

AND

REGISTRAR OF FINES ENFORCEMENT REGISTRY
Defendant

Catchwords:

Practice and Procedure - Application for adjournment of proceedings - Where multiple successive applications for adjournment - Where application made at a late stage - Whether adjournment in the interests of justice - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

Nil

Result:

Application for adjournment granted

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Plaintiff	:	No appearance
Defendant	:	Mr J F Bennett

Solicitors:

Plaintiff	:	No appearance
Defendant	:	State Solicitor for Western Australia

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Snook v Registrar of Fines Enforcement Registry [2018] WASC 402
Snook v Registrar of Fines Enforcement Registry [2019] WASCA 204

TOTTLE J:

(This judgment was delivered extemporaneously on 4 November 2020 and has been edited from the transcript.)

The applicant, Ms Snook, has applied to the court to review a decision made by the respondent to make a cancellation order in respect of Ms Snook's driving licence. The background to that decision and relevant procedural history is set out in an earlier decisions of this court and in a decision of the Court of Appeal.[1]
[1] Snook v Registrar of Fines Enforcement Registry [2018] WASC 402; Snook v Registrar of Fines Enforcement Registry [2019] WASCA 204.
Ms Snook is self-represented. It is evident to the court that she has difficulty representing herself. She has informed the court on a number of occasions that she suffers from post‑traumatic stress disorder.
The directions hearing was convened on 4 November 2020 because the final hearing of Ms Snook's application had been programmed to commence on 5 November 2020. Ms Snook did not appear at the directions hearing listed for 11.00 am. After hearing submissions from counsel for the respondent I adjourned briefly to consider the submissions. During the adjournment Ms Snook informed my Associate, who had been trying to contact her, that she had not been aware of the hearing because, on the basis of medical advice, she was not opening emails in relation to legal matters.
The substantive hearing had been programmed to proceed over four hearing days on the basis that the court would sit for limited hours on each of those days and that the sequence of hearing days would be broken by the weekend. Such programming was designed to assist Ms Snook in coping with the difficulty of representing herself and the associated stress.
By a series of emails to my associate commencing on 29 October 2020 Ms Snook has informed the court that she is unable, for medical reasons, to proceed with the final hearing as programmed. She has informed the court that she is, to use her words, 'Having to move all court matters and all court preparation to beyond three months after this certificate'. The reference to 'this certificate' is a reference to a medical certificate from a general practitioner dated 26 October 2020.
I have treated the emails as an informal application for an adjournment. The emails attached medical certificates. Two of those certificates, being those dated 26 October 2020 and 2 November 2020, are certificates from a general practitioner. They are brief but what they disclose is as follows: the general practitioner considers that Ms Snook has suffered a stress‑related breakdown; she has also recently been admitted to hospital for chest pain; and she is undergoing investigations in relation to her heart.
The emails also attach a letter from a consultant psychiatrist addressed to the Joondalup Magistrates Court dated 5 October 2020. The letter appears to have been written in support of an application by Ms Snook to adjourn proceedings before that court. The psychiatrist's letter refers to Ms Snook having a long history of complex post-traumatic stress disorder and refers to the need for Ms Snook to have a report prepared on her psychiatric condition by a specialist forensic psychiatrist.
The lack of detail contained in the medical certificate and the psychiatrist's letter about Ms Snook's present condition and, importantly, the prognosis, is such that ordinarily little weight could be attached to their contents.
The respondent opposes the application for an adjournment and makes the point that this is the second, if not third, occasion upon which these proceedings, commenced by Ms Snook, have been the subject of an adjournment application. The final hearing had been listed to take place on 18 December 2019 but on 11 December 2019 Ms Snook applied for an adjournment. Although refused initially, Ms Snook's application for an adjournment was ultimately successful on medical grounds.
The respondent's counsel has commented on the paucity of the medical evidence. The respondent proposes, however, that if the court was minded to adjourn the final hearing, then consideration be given to two alternatives. The first is that the application be determined on the papers. This proposal rests in part on the fact that the application has been supported by a substantial volume of materials filed by Ms Snook and the respondent has filed both affidavit evidence and submissions that address the the application in a sufficiently comprehensive way that the court is able to determine the matter without hearing further from the parties.
The proposal that the matter be determined on the papers would arguably disadvantage Ms Snook who seeks to cross‑examine the deponent of the principal affidavit relied upon by the respondent, being Ms Alison Jackson, who at the relevant time held the office of Registrar of Fines Enforcement Registry. Whether such cross-examination is necessary for the effective and just determination of the application is, however, a contestable proposition.
The second proposal made by the respondent is that the court release the respondent from an undertaking previously given not to take action in respect of the cancellation of Ms Snook's driving licence without giving 14 days notice. That undertaking was given in October 2018 by the respondent's counsel.
Determining whether to adjourn the substantive hearing involves balancing Ms Snook's interests against the public interest. On the basis of the medical evidence, limited though it is, coupled with my own assessment of Ms Snook's capacity to advocate on her own behalf when under stress, I am satisfied that Ms Snook would have difficulty in conducting the hearing and that difficulty is attributable in a significant respect to her psychiatric health.
The public interest includes the public's interest in the efficient administration of justice. Late applications to adjourn proceedings that have been listed for some time is not in the interests of the efficient administration of justice.
The public interest also includes the interest of the respondent discharging the statutory duties imposed by the relevant legislation unencumbered by any undertaking given to this court.
In my view on balance the interests of justice favour the grant of an adjournment. I am of the view, however, that the adjournment only be granted the basis that:
(a)The matter be adjourned to 2 March 2021 for directions;
(b) With effect from 2 March 2021 the respondent is discharged from the undertaking given to this court.
(c)On 2 March 2021 the application will be programmed for a final hearing.
(d)If Ms Snook is still unable to attend court in person, or if at that stage she is not represented, consideration will be given to determining the matter on the papers.

I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia.
AS
Associate to the Honourable Justice Tottle
1 DECEMBER 2020