WEST v FORBES SHIRE COUNCIL SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA 7 May 1990 [1990] NSWCA 187 Priestley JA This application is made by Mr West in person, seeking that time be extended for the lodgment of a notice of appeal against an order made by Sharpe J on 11 August 1989. In that order, Sharpe J transferred proceedings commenced in the Supreme Court to the District Court held at Sydney. That is the only matter against which Mr West would have been able to appeal had he done so in time. In order to get an extension of time, he needed to persuade the court that he had some valid reason for the delay between last August and 11 April this year when he filed his papers and also that he had some prospects of success if time were extended and the appeal were allowed to go forward. The summons by which he began his claim was filed on 11 January 1988 and claimed damages for eviction without an eviction order. It appears from the papers filed in respect of the appeal, and what Mr West has said today, that he would wish at the hearing of the merits of this matter to widen that claim by alleging defamation, larceny and character assassination. The incident out of which the case arises happened on 4 January 1982, according to one of the documents filed by Mr West. Taking the most generous approach to his claims and assuming he could bring them to their full extent, before the court would interfere with the order sending the matter to the District Court, it would need to have some reason to think that Mr West's damages might exceed $100,000. There is no material before the court which, to my mind, indicates that Mr West, even if he is successful to the fullest extent against the Council, is likely to obtain an award of damages greater than that amount. He has mentioned in his papers that he is seeking $100,000,000 damages. This indicates that he has a somewhat unrealistic attitude towards the potential of his case. Something less than $100,000 is all that any reasonable approach suggests as possible for the complaints that he has against the Council. I would therefore dismiss his application for an extension of time to lodge the appeal. In his notice of motion, he also indicated that he wished to join various other parties as defendants in the proceedings. Notice was given to those other parties, some of whom have appeared by their legal representatives this morning. The question of their standing to appear in advance of the application for extension of time being granted was left until that application was determined. This is relevant to Mr West because in dismissing this application, the ordinary tule which I am bound to follow is that it must be dismissed with costs. That means the Council will get Mr Cuddy's costs of coming here today to appear against you, Mr West. So far as the other people who have turned up this morning are concerned, I am not so sure that they are entitled to any costs at the stage the application has reached here today. So I am going to ask them what they are going to say. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS MR WEST: I will be claiming costs as litigant in person. HIS HONOUR: That is not a ground for claiming costs, unfortunately for you. Mr Cuddy, insofar as you are appearing for the Apex Club as amicus curiae - MR CUDDY: I am not claiming my costs for that. HIS HONOUR: Mr Stoten, what do you want to say? MR STOTEN: My instructions were to seek costs, but in view of what your Honour says, I would be presenting no argument on that. HIS HONOUR: I make no order for costs in regard to anybody except Mr Cuddy. Miss Cox? MISS COX: I would not be seeking an order as to costs. The order I make therefore is the notice of motion is dismissed with costs. The costs order refers only to the appearance of Mr Cuddy for the party which was strictly speaking the opponent to the proceedings today and was the defendant in the proceedings before his Honour Mr Justice Sharpe. No orders for costs of any other person are made. I note as well that Mr West, in presenting his case in which he was really in great difficulty because of lack of legal knowledge, presented it politely and sensibly in the circumstances.