Soares v Bayer Australia Pty Limited

[1999] NSWCA 151

CITATION:	Soares v Bayer Australia Pty Limited [1999] NSWCA 151
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40244/99
HEARING DATE(S):	10 May 1999
JUDGMENT DATE:	10 May 1999
PARTIES :	Jesus Benedicto Soares - claimant/appellant Bayer Australia Pty Limited - opponent/respondent
JUDGMENT OF:	Registrar Jupp

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION:	Compensation Court
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	10079/97
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER:	Nielsen CCJ

COUNSEL:	claimant in person Mr Marcos for opponent/respondent
SOLICITORS:	claimant unrepresented Hickson Wisewoulds - opponent/respondent
CATCHWORDS:	extension of time to appeal
DECISION:	motion dismissed with costs

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

40244/99

REGISTRAR JUPP

MONDAY 10 MAY 1999

JESUS BENEDICTO SOARES v BAYER AUSTRALIA PTY LIMITED
JUDGMENT

1. REGISTRAR: In these proceedings the claimant is a litigant in person. A Notice of Appeal without Appointment was filed on 9 April 1999. The Notice of Appeal without Appointment is from a decision of Judge Nielsen of the Compensation Court of 9 December 1998.
2. At the same time as the Notice of Appeal without Appointment was filed, a Notice of Motion seeking an extension of time to appeal the relevant decision was filed. The order that the claimant is therefore seeking is to validate the Notice of Appeal which would otherwise have been filed out of time.
3. In support of the Notice of Motion, the claimant has sworn an affidavit of 5 May 1999. That affidavit does not, in my opinion, disclose any grounds of appeal that the Court of Appeal would be able to consider.
4. I have been advised by Mr Marcos, who is appearing on behalf of the opponent company, that the relevant award of the Compensation Court was an award entered by consent and approved by Judge Nielsen. So far as the opponent is concerned, the award was negotiated in good faith with the former solicitors and counsel acting for the claimant.
5. The basis of Mr Soares' complaint appears to be that when the consent award was entered into he was suffering under a disability, namely diabetes. He has also indicated that he was under some duress from his former solicitors.
6. I have indicated to Mr Soares in court that he may a remedy other than an appeal to the Court of Appeal. I have suggested to Mr Soares that he discusses this matter with the Legal Services Commissioner. He may have an action against his former solicitors for professional negligence, although that is a matter for other people to determine once they know the full facts and circumstances of the case. There is also a possibility that he may be able to apply to the Compensation Court itself to re-open the case.
7. Nevertheless, as far as I can see, there are no grounds of appeal which I can extract from the material that Mr Soares has lodged. Under those circumstances the appropriate course, is that the Notice of Motion be dismissed and the ordinary costs order that would normally follow would be that it be dismissed with costs. Under the circumstances where costs are sought I feel obliged to make that order. The motion is dismissed with costs.
certified correct
Steve Jupp 24/5/99