HUGHES v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS and ANOR [1994] NSWCA 140

HUGHES v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

GLEESON CJ, KIRBY P and MAHONEY JA 15 March 1994

[1994] NSWCA 140

Gleeson CJ When this summons, which was expedited, came on for hearing this morning counsel for the claimant informed us that his instructions were to apply for an adjournment of the summons. That application was supported by the affidavits of Michelle Anne Hughes of 15 March 1994 and of Nicholas Baltinos of 15 March 1994. In opposition to the application the opponent relied on two affidavits of M J Taylor of 14 March 1994.

This is not a matter which has come before the Court today for the first time. There has been a good deal of activity previously before the Court in relation to this summons and, as I mentioned earlier, the claimant sought and obtained an expedited hearing of the summons.

So far as can be made out from the evidence filed in support of the application the application is based principally upon a rather late change in the identity of the legal representatives of the claimant. The solicitors who

had previously been representing the claimant have, for reasons that were unexplained, ceased to represent her and she has engaged other lawyers to act for her.

The point at issue in the summons is a very short point. It concerns the question whether when the matter came before Karpin DCJ her Honour failed to comply with the requirements of fairness and failed to give some appropriate warning to the appellant of the possible consequences of proceeding with her summons from the magistrate in the Local Court. It is common ground that her Honour gave and repeated certain warnings in that connection and the point at issue in the summons as it has been opened to us by counsel for the claimant is simply whether what she said constituted adequate warning. We stood the matter down to the end of today's list but we do not think that the claimant has made out a case for the adjournment which is sought and the application for adjournment is refused. We will proceed with the hearing of the summons.