BAGNALL v DJAKOVIC SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY and PRIESTLEY JJA and Hope AJA 30 September 1991 [1991] NSWCA 16 Mahoney JA (MOTION) This is an application in the form of an application for leave to appeal. Mr Deakin has explained the circumstances of the case. The leave to appeal is sought because the person nominated in the proceeding as first claimant, Nr Bagnall, was ordered, it is said, by the judge of the District Court to pay a sum of money representing fifteen times the daily allowance of a rate of a member of a jury panel: that, in the context of a consent order dispensing with a jury, and, as I understand it, in the context of the adjournment of the proceedings. The Court is informed by Mr Stone, who appears for the defendant, that an order by way of costs was also made against his solicitor at the same time. However, the present matter concerns the position of Mr Bagnall. The application is for leave to appeal, based as the Court is informed upon s128(5A) of the District Court Act, against his Honour's order, as an interlocutory order, against Mr Bagnall. Whether the application for leave to appeal is an appropriate or the most appropriate form of procedure to test this matter is a matter which will, no doubt, require consideration in due course. The Court has indicated that it desires to have before it the terms of his Honour's judgment and, if possible, the transcript of the proceedings consequent upon which the judgment was made. That has been applied for on behalf of Mr Bagnall but is not yet available. It is said that it may not be available until at least 11 November next. In the circumstances the Court is of the view that the matter presently before the Court should be stood over until 11 November 1991 to enable the transcript of the judgment to be obtained. I think this matter ought to be dealt with with some degree of expedition and it would be of assistance to this Court if the transcript could be provided promptly. Mr Deakin's solicitor is authorized to convey that indication of this Court to those in authority in relation to the matter, so that, if possible, the transcript of the judgment can be available at that time. The only order formally to be made is that the application stand over until 11 November 1991. The costs of today will be reserved. The Court should indicate, I think, that the Court as presently constituted will not be part heard in the matter. The matter can come before any Court constituted on that day. If an application is also made by Mr Stone's solicitor in relation to the matter and if the issue in that proceeding is sufficiently similar to the present matter, the two matters should conveniently be dealt with together. Those instructing Mr Stone may think it convenient to have both matters brought on together, so that the costs of the applications can be minimized. These are the orders that I would propose. Priestley JA I agree. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Hope AJA I agree. The only order formally to be made is that the application stand over until 11 November 1991. The costs of today will be reserved. The Court indicates that the Court as presently constituted will not be part heard in the matter. The matter can come before any Court constituted on that day. If an application is also made by Mr Stone's solicitor in relation to the matter and if the issue in that proceeding is sufficiently similar to the present matter, the two matters should conveniently be dealt with together. Those instructing Mr Stone may think it convenient to have both matters brought on together, so that the costs of the applications can be minimized.