SOLOMON v CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION [1992] NSWCA 235

SOLOMON v CORPORATE AFFAIRS COMMISSION SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — CouRT OF APPEAL

CLARKE JA 6 April 1992

[1992] NSWCA 235

Clarke JA. This is an application by Mr Solomon to vacate a hearing date which is 27 April 1992. I have been handed a chronology of events which indicates that the notice of appeal was originally filed prior to October 1989. Various procedures have been taken since then but at no stage does Mr Solomon appear to have approached Legal Aid until 3 March. That was a relatively significant date because on the next day there was a call-over at which it was anticipated that a date would be given for the hearing of the appeal. That is in fact what happened on 4 March. Mr Registrar Jupp set the matter down for hearing on 27 April for three and possibly four days. At that time Mr Solomon told the court that he was unrepresented and he was directed to file a notice of motion seeking leave for him to represent the corporate appellants. The present notice of motion which includes the matter with which I am presently dealing was then filed.

The basis of the application for vacation is that Mr Solomon has no legal representation and will not be able to present his case properly. I accept that he will be undersignificant difficulties in seeking to argue this case in court. It will, as I see it, be no simple task, but the acceptance of that proposition does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the date should be vacated.

One consideration is whether any benefit would be secured to Mr Solomon if the case was adjourned. In that respect Mr Solomon informed the court that he had been told orally that his application for legal aid had been refused. He had not, he said, had written confirmation of that advice. The plain fact is that the court does not know any more than Mr Solomon has told it, and that is that he has been informed that his application has been refused and upon that basis there would be little benefit in adjourning the case to another date because at the eventual hearing Mr Solomon would be still required to put his own arguments. I have not overlooked the possibility that he might lodge an appeal from any determination of the Legal Aid Commission, but the present position is that he has not so far as the court is aware received a grant of legal aid.