X7 v Australian Crime Commission
[2012] HCATrans 169
[2012] HCATrans 169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Office of the Registry
Sydney No S100 of 2012
B e t w e e n -
X7
Plaintiff
and
AUSTRALIAN CRIME COMMISSION
First Defendant
THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA
Second Defendant
Summons for directions
GUMMOW ACJ
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 26 JUNE 2012, AT 10.18 AM
Copyright in the High Court of Australia
MR G.D. WENDLER: Your Honour, I appear for the plaintiff on the summons for directions. (instructed by John D Weller & Associates)
MR M.J. O’MEARA: May it please the Court, I appear for the defendants. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor)
HIS HONOUR: Now, what is the position in this matter, gentlemen?
MR WENDLER: The first defendant has filed a ‑ ‑ ‑
HIS HONOUR: Proposed short minutes?
MR WENDLER: Yes, which I agree with, as being a sensible way to advance it.
HIS HONOUR: Very well. Now, is your client the defendant in these proceedings?
MR WENDLER: He is the plaintiff, obviously, in this matter, but ‑ ‑ ‑
HIS HONOUR: No, I mean in the criminal proceedings.
MR WENDLER: Yes, he is. That is right.
HIS HONOUR: Not just a witness?
MR WENDLER: No, no, he is not a witness. He is the defendant. I think he wishes he was a witness.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. Now, the Registrar has drawn to my attention a decision of the Western Australian Court of Appeal in a case called Saraceni v Jones decided on 16 March 2012. The electronic citation is [2012] WASCA 59. There is a pending special leave application in which Mr David Jackson is briefed. The question there is not the same, though it may be related. It was a question of the invalidity of 596A and 597 of the Corporations Act which confer power to summon for examination into the affairs of corporations.
MR WENDLER: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: It might be worth counsel having a look at that. It may be that the two proceedings have to be connected in some way, but that is for a future date.
MR WENDLER: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: All right, just pardon me a minute. Would Tuesday, 21 August at 9.30 be a convenient date, gentlemen?
MR O’MEARA: It is suitable for our client.
MR WENDLER: Yes, thank you.
HIS HONOUR: I have completed proposed order 5 so that it reads “The matter be listed for further directions in Sydney at 9.30 am on 21 August 2012 before me”. I will direct that a copy of these orders and the transcript of today be placed in the special leave file in the Saraceni matter which is P8/2012.
So the Court orders:
1.The plaintiff be identified in these proceedings by the use of the pseudonym “X7”.
2.The defendants serve on the plaintiff their proposed case stated on or before 10 July 2012.
3.The plaintiff serve on the defendants any response to the proposed case stated on or before 24 July 2012.
4.The defendants file any agreed draft case stated on or before 7 August 2012.
5.The matter be listed for further directions in Sydney at 9.30 am on 21 August 2012 before me.
MR WENDLER: Just one procedural matter. Would your Honour grant leave to file in the Registry the affidavit of John Weller? It concerns compliance with section 78B of the Judiciary Act.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. That has been served?
MR WENDLER: It has – well, it has not been served on my friends. What happened was the solicitor did not file the 78B notice before sending a stamped copy to the attorneys in May and, as a consequence, the Registry would not take the document, but it is now connected to his affidavit and sets out the compliance required by 78B.
HIS HONOUR: That is the affidavit of ‑ ‑ ‑
MR WENDLER: Of John Weller dated 18 June 2012.
HIS HONOUR: No opposition to that?
MR O’MEARA: No, none, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: You have that leave.
MR WENDLER: Yes, thank you, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, thank you, gentlemen.
AT 10.24 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED
0