David Anthony McCARTHY v LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES [1991] NSWCA 194
NSW Caselaw
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
David Anthony McCARTHY v LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES
SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL
MAHONEY, PRIESTLEY and MEAGHER JJA
3 June 1991
[1991] NSWCA 194
Mahoney JA This application comes before the Court in the context of an
appealwhich has been brought against orders made by the Statutory Committee
on, it would appear, 6 December 1990. The appeal has been brought against those
orders by a document described as a summons bearing date 21 January 1991.
Mr McCarthy, the appellant in the matter, has moved the court on motion for
orders, the principal one of which is that the matter stand out of the list for a
period of six months.
The basis of the application - as appearing from the affidavit which has been
filed in the matter - essentially is that there are criminal proceedings now
pending, criminal proceedings in respect of which - as I understand - Mr
McCarthy has been committed for trial in relation to some, but not all, of the
matters relied upon by the Statutory Committee in making the orders against Mr
McCarthy that it did. Those orders involve that he be struck off the Roll of
Solicitors.
The essential problem arises because of the pendency of the criminal
proceedings.
Mr Garling, for the Law Society, has opposed the application that the matter
stand out of the list generally. He has indicated that subsequently if and when the
matter of the appeal is ready for hearing by this Court the Law Society would
consider its position again in relation to any application for further adjournment
by reason of the pendency of the criminal proceedings.
There is substance in the contention that there would be embarrassment if the
criminal proceedings are apt to involve matters in respect of which Mr McCarthy,
if the appeal proceeds first, would want to give evidence before this Court there
is substance in the contention that they may involve him in unacceptable
embarrassment.
On the other hand, it is inappropriate that the preparation of the material for the
present appeal should be delayed unnecessarily.
In the circumstances, in my opinion, the proper order to be made is that the
present application, that is the Notice of Motion, should stand over. The
contemplation would be that the preparation of the appeal papers would then
proceed in the ordinary course.
Iam appreciative of the fact that Mr McCarthy has indicated that he may make
an application for, as he describes it, a complete rehearing of the matter but,
without binding the court to which any such application ultimately may come, it
does not appear to me that that possibility precludes or makes inappropriate the
preparation of the appeal papers at the present time. In my opinion, the ordinary
procedures in relation to the preparation of the appeal papers should go forward.
If there were any delay in that matter by Mr McCarthy - and I do not, of course,
2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS
suggest there would be then, of course, it would be open to the Law Society to
make such application to this Court by way of striking out the appeal, or
otherwise, as might be appropriate.
In my opinion, the proper course to be followed would be that the preparation
of the appeal papers proceed, that the Notice of Motion stand over to an
appropriate date and when, in the ordinary course, the appeal with the papers
having been prepared, would be apt to come on for hearing, then the position can
be reviewed and, if necessary, the application upon the Notice of Motion can be
dealt with.
It would be appropriate, in my opinion, to reserve the costs of the motion to
date; this could be dealt with at the time when the motion was proposed to be
dealt with.
The position then is one would have to fix a date for the adjournment of the
Notice of Motion. It is undesirable that a Notice of Motion stand in limbo.
The Notice of Motion will stand over to 9 December 1991, liberty to either
party to restore on two days' notice, costs to date reserved.
Priestley JA I agree.
Meagher JA I also agree.
The Notice of Motion will stand over to 9 December 1991, liberty to either
party to restore on two days' notice, costs to date reserved.
Related laws
No related documents linked yet.
You've got 21 of 22 free Acts left this visit. Sign up anytime for Facts, Related, and study briefs too.