CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION v SOLOMON [1989] NSWCA 51

CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION v SOLOMON SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY AP 1 November 1989

[1989] NSWCA 51

Mahoney AP The Corporate Affairs Commission brought proceedings, in Proceedings 2917 of 1984 and 3576 of 1987, against Mr Eddie Solomon and certain companies with which he was associated. The hearing of the proceedings was concluded on 5 December 1988 and, on 6 April 1989, Young J made orders whereby the relevant defendants were restrained from activities of the kind complained of. On 10 May 1989 Mr Solomon lodged a form of notice of appeal against his Honour's orders. On 7 July 1989 the Commission moved for an order that the notice of appeal be struck out.

On 24 July 1989, upon a consideration of the form of the notice of appeal, Clarke JA indicated to Mr Solomon that the notice of appeal which had been lodged was likely to be struck out. He therefore informed Mr Solomon that he should have a further period in which to file an amended notice of appeal.

On 18 August 1989 Mr Solomon filed the document here in question, described as "Supplementary Notice of Appeal".

The Commission, on this application, seeks to have struck out the original notice of appeal and the supplementary notice of appeal.

Mr Solomon has informed the court that the notice of appeal which he desires to sustain is the supplementary notice of appeal and the motion has proceeded upon that basis.

The supplementary notice of appeal purports to be a notice of appeal lodged on behalf of ten appellants, the first two of which are Mr and Mrs Solomon and the remainder of which are companies with which, it has been assumed, or Solomon is associated. No issue is raised on this application as to whether the other appellants and in particular the corporate appellants have authorised the drawing and filing of the relevant notice of appeal. Mr Solomon has appeared for himself. There has been no separate appearance for Mrs Solomon or the corporate appellants. Mr Solomon has, I understand, already been informed and, I believe, realises that he cannot appear for any person other than himself. The fact that the other appellants have not appeared does not in principle go to the application which the Commission makes.