AEN COASE v STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MEAGHER JA 17 June 1991 [1991] NSWCA 56 Meagher JA In this matter Mr Coase brought an action which was tried by Smart J in October 1988. His Honour delivered judgment on the substance of the matter on 21 April 1989 and on the costs aspect of the matter in November 1989. On 15 December 1989 Mr Coase lodged an appeal and on 8 December 1990 the Bank filed a cross-appeal. At the same time as it filed a cross-appeal it filed a motion to strike out the notice of appeal. On 12 February 1990 Mr Coase filed a motion to extend time to appeal. On 30 April 1990 Mr Coase's motion to extend time was refused and his notice of appeal struck out. Once that happened there was then nothing before the Court. No application was then made for leave to file a further notice of appeal. No application was made for an extension of time to permit a further notice of appeal to be filed. No application of that sort has been made since. On 29 May 1991 Mr Coase filed a document which is called a notice of motion returnable today and I have heard that notice of motion seeks the following relief: "1. Re-hearing be granted. 2. Pursuant to Pt23 R7 and 7-1 of the rules, the appellant seek leave to appeal. 3. Pursuant to Pt23 R7 and 7-1 of the rules, the respondent has failed to list all class of documents relating to any matter in question in the proceedings. 4. That the respondent pay the costs of the motion. 5. Such further or other orders a; to the Court shall deem fit." In my view the notice of motion must necessarily be dismissed with costs. As far as the first order sought is concerned, that a rehearing be granted, such an order is not proper for a notice of motion. Para2 and para3 of the notice of motion do not in terms seek any order from me at all. Since there is no proceeding currently on foot it seems to me inevitable that any notice of motion filed would suffer a fairly dismal fate. In the present case that dismal fate is made more dismal still by the fact that the so-called notice of motion is almost incomprehensible. What is said to be evidence in support of that notice of motion is a document called an affidavit filed by Mr Coase apparently on 31 May 1991. Insofar as it makes any sense at all it does not establish any cause of action in any regard. Insofar as it alleges that at some stage, presumably in the course of the trial, that the defendant Bank did not discover certain documents, it does not persuade me either that the Bank did not discover those documents, particularly when Mr Russell filed in Court some of the original exhibits in respect of which it is alleged no discovery was made; nor am I convinced that anything Mr Coase has said would tend to indicate that if the so-called documents were allegedly not discovered had in fact been discovered, the result would have been any different. Therefore, in this unfortunate state of affairs I regret that no order can be made except that the notice of motion be dismissed with costs.