DAEMAR v INDUSTRIAL COMMISSION OF NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL SAMUELS, CLARKE and MEAGHER JJA 10 September 1990 [1990] NSWCA 50 Samuels JA In this matter the complainant appears in person. He was involved in proceedings under s88F of the Industrial Arbitration Act 1940 in which the Industrial Cornmission made orders against him which he contends were wrong, and which he asserts led to his bankruptcy and consequently considerable financial disadvantage. He then brought proceedings against the Industrial Commission and the parties to the original proceedings in the Commission, and this Court stayed his claims, which were for both financial and prerogative relief, on the ground that as a hankrupt he was unable to pursue them. Subsequently, he was discharged from bankruptcy. He applied on motion to a judge of this Court, Handley JA, for an order setting aside the stay to enable him to pursue at least his claims for prerogative relief, conceding the claims for financial relief against the consequences of the bankruptcy were no linger available. Handley JA heard that application in February of this year and rejected it, refusing to set aside or vacate the stay which this Court had originally pronounced. Subsequently, in July of this year, Mr Daemar sought again to have the stay vacated and filed another purported return day, and he was told that until Handley JA's order was set aside, it stood as an obstacle to Mr Daemar's motion. A further motion was filed and that is the proceeding before us. Mr Daemar's principal argument is that by dint of pt40 r8 of the Rules, he is entitled, notwithstanding Handley JA's order, to proceed in the way he now contemplates. I am of the opinion that that argument is unsound since it refers to particular proceedings under s46 subs! of the Supreme Court Act which have no relevance here. Alternatively, Mr Daemar seeks an adjournment to enable him to file an application for extension of time within which to seek the discharge of Handley JA's order. Any application for that purpose must, by pt51 134, be brought within fourteen (14) days, and obviously Mr Daemar is well out of time. Mr Kennedy-Smith opposes any such course pointing out that the matter goes back a great many years- as indeed it does - and that it would not be reasonable in the interests of his client to allow the application to be made. I emphasise that all we are considering at the moment is whether Mr Daemar should have an opportunity to make the application, and in no sense are we determining what the result of such an application might be. I bear in mind that this is a matter of importance so far as Mr Daemar is concerned, although the only relief he can now obtain is limited to the formal rectification of what he contends to be an erroneous determination of the Industrial Commission. I am of the opinion he should be given an opportunity to bring his application and, for that purpose, that the matter should be adjourned to enable him to file such documents for the purpose of obtaining the extension of time as he might think proper. Accordingly, I would propose that the present application be adjourned for four weeks, that is to 8 October, which would give 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Mr Daemar ample time in which to file and serve the documents he may need and that the costs of these applications to date should be reserved. Clarke JA I agree. 5 Meagher JA I also agree. Application adjourned for four weeks ie to 8 October.