Taylor v Commonwealth Bank of Australia

[2008] HCATrans 178

[2008] HCATrans 178

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Melbourne  No M157 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

MALVYN GREGORY TAYLOR

Applicant

and

COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA

Respondent

Summons for reinstatement

CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 6 MAY 2008, AT 9.31 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MR R.D. SHEPHERD:   If the Court pleases, I appear on behalf of the respondent.  (instructed by A.J. Mullumby)

HER HONOUR:   Yes, Mr Shepherd.

MR SHEPHERD:   The current position is as per the affidavit of Mr Dewar, which was sworn yesterday, which I understand has been provided to your Honour.  Mr Taylor was seeking an adjournment of his application.

HER HONOUR:   Yes.

MR SHEPHERD:   That application is opposed.

HER HONOUR:   Yes, Mr Shepherd, I have read that affidavit.  May I raise with you what I am inclined, possibly, to do?

MR SHEPHERD:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   You are as aware as I am that Mr Taylor has been before the Court before in relation to seeking extensions of time for the purposes of applying applications for special leave.  This is not the first occasion on which that has happened.

MR SHEPHERD:   Correct, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   In the past and, as I recollect it, you were involved in a particular matter, I made what sometimes are referred to as self‑executing orders, that is to say I made an order in terms that some time was given to Mr Taylor for the purposes of doing what he seeks to do, namely file a late application for special leave and it was also a condition of an order made previously that your client’s costs were fixed at a particular sum.

MR SHEPHERD:   Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR:   My inclination is to make the same order today – there would be two matters of detail which I wish to raise with you.  Because of Mr Taylor’s medical certificate, which indicates a rather severe case of depression at the moment which it would appear is something which the doctor estimates he would require a month or so to recover from or stabilise with, what I am inclined to do is to allow that month for Mr Taylor’s recovery and then to allow a month within which time he will need to file a draft notice of appeal and a written case in support.  So it will look like a long period – it is nearly two months – but it will factor in a month for Mr Taylor to recover from his present medical difficulties and I was

inclined, in accordance with saying – or analogous order made on the previous occasion to fix your client’s costs at $1,500.  Do you wish to mount any opposition in relation to that?

The reason why I bring that possibility forward is it is possible that there will only be further expenditure of costs if the matter is adjourned for another five weeks and this appears to me to perhaps be the cheapest and, for Mr Taylor, the most stress‑free approach to take, rather than find we are all back in Court in a month’s time and no progress has been made.

MR SHEPHERD:   Yes, your Honour, well in those circumstances I do not disagree with what your Honour proposes.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you, Mr Shepherd.

If on or before 4.00 pm on 30 June 2008 the applicant files a draft notice of appeal and a written case in support of his application for special leave and pays the respondent’s costs to date, which are fixed at $1,500, the application for special leave is not deemed to be abandoned.

In that context, Mr Shepherd, I will just record for the transcript that either party would have liberty to apply on three day’s notice.  I record that observation because of Mr Taylor’s absence today through illness.

MR SHEPHERD:   If your Honour pleases.

HER HONOUR:   Thank you.  Thank you for your assistance, Mr Shepherd.

AT 9.35 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED