Wentworth v Rogers

The matter before the High Court of Australia involved an application by Ms K. Wentworth, appearing in person, for an adjournment. The respondents, the first respondent represented by Mr J. Slattery and the second respondent, the Legal Aid Commission, represented by Mr M.F. Gray QC and Mr P.A. Johnson, indicated their agreement to the adjournment.

The central legal issue was whether certain provisions of the *Legal Services Commission Act 1979* (NSW), as amended by the *Legal Aid Commission (Amendment) Act 1987* (NSW), were binding on the High Court and other federal courts. Specifically, Ms Wentworth relied on section 56, which provides for an appeal to the Legal Aid Review Committee for persons dissatisfied with a determination of the Commission, and section 57(a)(i) and (ii), which stipulate that a court or tribunal shall adjourn proceedings upon compliance with those provisions. She argued that these provisions, despite being State legislation, were effective and binding on the High Court due to amendments that vested in the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission authorities of the Commonwealth and merged it with the Australian Legal Aid Commission.

Ms Wentworth contended that the 1987 amendments, particularly the insertion of section 72A, reflected a Commonwealth/State agreement. This agreement, she submitted, integrated the functions and authorities of the Australian Legal Aid Office into the New South Wales Legal Aid Commission. She referred to definitions within Schedule 1 of the Act and other amended sections, such as section 8 concerning the provision of information to Commonwealth legal aid bodies and section 37(1)(c) which extended the definition of "Minister of the Crown" to include those of New South Wales or the Commonwealth. The implication of her argument was that the State legislation, as amended and integrated with Commonwealth functions, imposed a mandatory duty on the court to adjourn proceedings under the specified circumstances.