HUNT v LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY P 13 December 1993, 13 December 1993 [1993] NSWCA 141 LEGAL PRACTITIONERS — misconduct — removal of name of solicitor from roll — appeal — non compliance with Registrar's directions — lapse of more than one year in prosecution of appeal — difficulties of service on solicitor — orders for substituted service made by Handley JA — proof of compliance with orders — non appearance of solicitor — held: (Apart from the proof of notice of the intended application, the solicitor had failed to prosecute his appeal and it should be dismissed for want of prosecution). ORDERS 1. Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; and 2. Appellant (opponent) to pay the respondent's (claimant's) costs. Kirby P Mr Ian Lewis Hunt was admitted as a solicitor of this Court on 22 July1977. He was subject to proceedings before the Legal Profession Disciplinary Tribunal. Those proceedings commenced on 20 August 1991 and concluded with the decision of the Tribunal on 5 December 1991. Put shortly, the Tribunal found that Mr Hunt had been found guilty of professional misconduct. The Tribunal ordered that his name be removed from the roll of solicitors. His name was so removed. On 2 October 1991, Mr Hunt appealed to this Court, as was his right. On 14 November 1991, a supplementary notice of appeal was filed by him. On 22 November 1991, an amended notice of appeal was filed. On the last mentioned date, the Registrar directed that an appeal index be filed within fourteen days. He also directed that the solicitors' certificate of examination of the transcript be filed and served by 31 December 1991 and that the appeal books be filed and served by 14 November 1992. On 3 December 1991, the draft index was duly served, ie within time. The other steps were not, however, taken. On 6 February 1992, Mr Hunt's solicitor filed and served a notice that they were ceasing to act for him. On 2 March, 7 May, 23 June and 10 August 1992, the Law Society forwarded reminders to Mr Hunt requesting that he comply with the remaining directions of the Registrar which remained unattended. On 26 October 1992, Mr Hunt wrote to the Registrar offering various explanations for his delay. The Registrar, on 24 November 1992, wrote to Mr Hunt noting the defaults and directing that the appeal books be filed by a new date, 29 January 1993. No such appeal books have been filed, whether by the day fixed or at all. On 3 September 1993 the Law Society wrote to Mr Hunt notifying him of the intention to apply to this Court to strike out the appeal for want of prosecution. Difficulties arose in serving Mr Hunt. Accordingly, the Court was moved for special orders in that regard. Those orders were made by Handley JA on 24 November 1993. His Honour made orders providing for service in a particular way at particular addresses. I have noted those orders. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS Read before me this morning have been two affidavits deposing to compliance with the orders of Handley JA. They are the affidavit of Bruce Frederick Elliott sworn 2 November 1993 and an affidavit of William Louis Perotti sworn 9 December 1993. I am satisfied that the orders of Handley JA as to service have been conformed to. When the matter was called before the Court this morning, the name of Ian Lewis Hunt was called outside the court. He did not appear. The Law Society now asks for the relief that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. It is a serious step to dismiss an appeal without a full hearing of the merits. On the other hand, it is clearly imperative that the directions of the Registrar for the efficient and just conduct of proceedings in the Court should be complied with. Ihave taken into account the fact that the name of the former solicitor has already been removed from the roll of solicitors. To that extent, it may be assumed that Mr Hunt is not now practising as a solicitor. On the other hand, it is desirable, indeed essential in a matter of this kind, that the appeal should not lie dormant. It should be brought on for early resolution in the interests of the appellant, of the Law Society and of the community. This cannot be done if the directions of the Registrar are not complied with. The gross delay and inactivity of Mr Hunt in prosecuting his appeal may be taken into consideration quite apart from the fact that service of the notice of motion has been proved in accordance with Handley JA's orders. The chronology which I have recounted indicates that no active step has been taken to prosecute this appeal for more than a year. In those circumstances it is plain that the appeal has lapsed. It is not being prosecuted by Mr Hunt. In all of the circumstances it is therefore appropriate to make the orders sought. I therefore order that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution. The appellant (opponent) must pay the respondent's (claimant's) costs. 1. Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution; and 2. Appellant (opponent) to pay the respondent's (claimant's) costs. Counsel for the Claimant: No appearance Instructed by: No appearance Counsel for the Opponent: NA Nicholls Instructed by: Frederick Smith