D'ARCY v KYRIOS SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA 27 June 1994 [1994] NSWCA 75 Priestley JA ORDER This case comes to the court having been commenced by a summons in the Administrative Law Division and then having been referred to the court by Mr Justice Dunford. The summons is directed to the Director General of the Department of School Education and the members of GREAT those defendants being named because of a dispute having arisen between the plaintiff and her employer which became the subject of a decision by GREAT. The relief sought in the summons is of a prerogative kind with which the Court of Appeal usually deals. The plaintiff has sought directions in accordance with the rules and has sought in addition, a particular order. Mr Benson for the defendants has told the court that nothing out of the ordinary is required in the way of directions in response to the application for directions in the usual way and I do not understand Miss D'Arcy to have put anything forward in opposition to that view. That seems to me to be the correct position in any event. Before making those directions I simply mention that the subject matter which Miss D'Arcy requested, which is set out in the notice of motion, ask for an order to be made for discovery of original documentation relating to the birth certificate of the plaintiff. The reason put forward to support this application was that the copy made available to the plaintiff was not clear in regard to some matter appearing on it and the plaintiff wished to see the original documentation in order to clear up whatever it was to which reference was being made in the unclear material on the copy. However, I was not able to ascertain from the plaintiff any reason why that additional material would be relevant to any matter that has already arisen in the proceedings between her and her employer or that might arise in the application for prerogative relief. Since I was not able to understand any reason why the order should be made I indicated that I would decline to make the order and I now refuse to make the order as requested. I direct any affidavits to be filed by the plaintiff in the proceedings be filed by 25 July 1994 and any affidavits to be filed by the defendant in the proceedings by 8 August 1994. I think it may be appropriate also to stand the application for directions over to 8 August 1994 with a view on that date to a date being allocated for the hearing of the matter. I give liberty to the parties to inquire from the Registrar of the Court in the week preceding 8 August 1994 what dates may be available for the hearing should the court think that the matter is in order to proceed on 8 August 1994. I give that liberty simply by way of suggestion to the parties so that they may now before they come to court on 8 August what time periods they are looking at. The Court will then be in a position to give a date without wasting time making inquiries of the Registrar on that date. 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS I have treated the summons as being a summon for prerogative relief because I am aware, as I was reminded this morning, that an earlier application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal so that the plaintiff in the current proceedings is restricted to an application for prerogative relief and I take it from the brief exchange between her and me a little while ago that she recognised that position. That is the basis upon which I have made these directions and stood the matter over. I reserve the costs of today.