Zeltner v Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court

This matter concerned an application by the appellant, C Zeltner, to vacate a scheduled hearing date for an appeal. The appeal itself was from a judicial review decision concerning search warrants issued by the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of the ACT at the request of an informant in criminal proceedings. The primary respondent was the Deputy Registrar of the Supreme Court of the ACT, with C Jones and T Giugni listed as second respondents. The application to vacate was opposed by the second respondent.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether the hearing date for the appeal should be vacated, primarily due to the potential unavailability of the appellant's counsel. The Court was required to consider the appellant's submissions regarding counsel's availability against factors such as the delay in bringing the application, the potential delay to the underlying criminal proceedings, and the absence of evidence that alternative counsel had been sought. The Court also had to weigh the general principle that court listings do not ordinarily accommodate counsel's convenience against the specific circumstance that counsel was instructed on a "no win, no fee" basis.

The Court reasoned that while the convenience of counsel, particularly when acting on a speculative or pro bono basis, can be a relevant consideration, it was not determinative in this instance. The Court noted the delay in the appellant filing the application to vacate and the lack of any steps taken to secure alternative counsel, despite the appellant having been granted liberty to apply to vacate on seven days' notice. Given the discrete nature of the issues and the time remaining until the hearing, the Court considered it not out of the question that alternative counsel could be found. Consequently, the Court dismissed the application to vacate the hearing date.

The Court confirmed the listing of the hearing of the appeal for 2:15 pm on 19 May 2022. The Court also noted a separate concern raised by the appellant regarding the estimated duration of the appeal, which differed from the initial indication. The Chief Justice indicated she would make inquiries to ascertain if the allocated judges were prepared to commence sitting earlier or extend the sitting time to accommodate the estimated four-hour duration.