HUGHES v DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS and ANOR [1994] NSWCA 140
NSW Caselaw
Full text
Select any passage to save a personal note with optional tags.
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.
Orders accordingly.