MENYHART vy GALOTTA TRADING AS GALLUZZO AND GALOTTA AND ANOR SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL HANDLEY JA 21 September 1992 [1992] NSWCA 153 Handley JA Mr Menyhart appearing in person has applied by notice of motion for leave to amend the grounds of appeal. The appeal book has already been printed and the appeal is listed for callover before the Registrar with a view to fixing a new hearing date on 7 October. Mr Battley who appeared for the respondents offered no opposition to my making an order today granting Mr Menyhart leave to file an amended notice of appeal to incorporate the amendments that he has sought. The task of producing a composite amended notice of appeal in the light of the terms of the notice of motion before me is essentially a mechanical one of typing out the new document. Mr Menyhart indicated that he would be in a position to file and serve the amended notice of appeal within 7 days. There were some discussions with Mr Battley about the form of the amendments to the ground of appeal and if Mr Menyhart had been professionally represented the Court would probably have insisted upon the grounds of appeal being further amended in order to comply with the rules of Court and to indicate what were truly grounds of challenge to the judgment of Johnston DCJ. However, Mr Menyhart is appearing in person and in the circumstances I am satisfied there is no good purpose to be served by attempting at this stage to fine tune the amendments for the benefit of the Full Court that will be hearing the appeal. Accordingly, I grant leave to the appellant to file and serve an amended notice of appeal incorporating the amendments foreshadowed in the notice of motion of 28 July 1992, such amended notice of appeal to be filed and served on or before 29 September. The costs of this motion are to be costs in the appeal. Mr Menyhart has also sought orders in a second notice of motion filed the same day in relation to fresh evidence. The orders sought in the second notice of motion indicated that Mr Menyhart was not at that stage familiar with the requirements of PtS51 R13A dealing with filing further evidence on an appeal to this Court. It is clear that an appellant such as Mr Menyhart does not need leave of the Court to file and attempt to rely upon further evidence in an appeal. There is therefore no need for me to make any orders on the second motion. However, Mr Menyhart has indicated that he will attempt to file and serve the further affidavits on which he proposes to rely on or before Wednesday 7 October when the appeal is due to be called over before the Registrar for a hearing date to be fixed which hopefully will be in November or December this year. I make no order directing Mr Menyhart to file and serve the affidavits on or before 7 October in view of the fact that the rules permit fresh evidence to be filed not later than 21 days before the hearing of the appeal. However, I explained to Mr Menyhart that it would be desirable in the interests of the Court and other litigants for that evidence to have been substantially if not completely filed on or before 7 October so the Court would have some informed idea of the likely length of the appeal. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS The only order I make on the motion is that the costs of the motion be costs in the appeal.