Wentworth v Rogers

[2000] NSWCA 365

CITATION:	Wentworth v Rogers [2000] NSWCA 365
FILE NUMBER(S):	CA 40962/98
HEARING DATE(S):	8 December 2000 Written submissions
JUDGMENT DATE:	15 December 2000
PARTIES :	Katherine Wentworth v Gordon J Rogers
JUDGMENT OF:	Handley JA at 1; Fitzgerald JA at 1

LOWER COURT JURISDICTION :	Supreme Court - Common Law Division
LOWER COURT FILE NUMBER(S) :	CLD 19228/82
LOWER COURT JUDICIAL OFFICER :	Hulme J

COUNSEL:	Miss Wentworth in person No appearance for opponent
SOLICITORS:	Miss Wentworth in person No appearance for the opponent
CATCHWORDS:	MOTION TO REVIEW ORDER REFUSING LEAVE TO APPEAL
CASES CITED:	Somodaj v Australian Iron & Steel Limited (1963) 109 CLR 285 Rogers v The Queen (1994) 181 CLR 251
DECISION:	The claimant's motion of 9 September 1998 is dismissed

THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COURT OF APPEAL

40962/98
CLD 19228/82

HANDLEY JA
FITZGERALD JA

15 December 2000



Katherine WENTWORTH v Gordon J ROGERS

JUDGMENT

1    THE COURT: On 7 September 1999 this Court, as presently constituted, dismissed the claimant’s summons for leave to appeal from a decision of Hulme J of 5 November 1998. By consent the summons had been determined in Chambers on the papers without a hearing. 2    On 9 September the claimant filed a notice of motion seeking orders that the summons be heard in open Court, that the decision of 7 September be set aside and other relief. The claimant also asked that Handley JA disqualify himself from the further hearing of this matter. The claimant’s affidavit of 9 September dealt principally with the delay in the delivery of the earlier judgment and the question of the disqualification of Handley JA. The notice of motion was heard by the Court, as presently constituted, on 27 September. At the outset Handley JA announced that he did not intend to disqualify himself. The opponent, although notified, elected not to appear and the matter proceeded ex parte. 3    The Court heard oral argument from the claimant in person before and after the luncheon adjournment but because of other matters in its list was unable to complete the hearing that day. The further hearing was adjourned to a date to be fixed, and the claimant was directed to file further written submissions within two weeks, limited to references in decisions of the Court of Appeal or in transcript of argument in the Court since 5 October 1994 dealing with the effect of the Court’s orders made on 5 May 1995, and their relationship with the orders of the Court made on 6 March 1987. 4    The claimant lodged further written submissions on 5, 9 and 31 October and 9 November comprising 19 pages, with 54 pages of supporting material, 8 pages, 3 pages and 3 pages respectively. These submissions extended beyond the leave granted on 29 September and appeared (para 124 5 October 1999) to envisage that there would be no further oral hearing. 5    Reference was made in those submissions to transcript and judgments in earlier proceedings, including the reasons for judgment…