STATE BANK OF NEW SOUTH WALES v WHITE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 28 February 1994 [1994] NSWCA 294 Mahoney JA MOTION This is a matter which comes before the Court on notice of motion. The motion seeks: "That a tape recording of the judgment given by Judge Johns of the Compensation Court of 26 November 1992 be produced to the Court and be made available to the parties in this matter." Ground 2 in the notice of motion is: "That the parties be granted access to the tape." The circumstances are that on 26 November 1992 his Honour in the Compensation Court apparently delivered an extempore judgment which, I assume, is recorded on a tape recording in that Court. One of the grounds of appeal in the appeal brought to this Court against his Honour's judgment is ground 2: "His Honour erred in revoking his finding that the applicant had suffered impairment of neck function in the ratio of one as to five of a most extreme case and substituting therefore the finding that the respondent woman had suffered impairment of the neck function in the proportion of one as to four of a most extreme case." Reference is made to relevant portions of the judgment in relation to what appears on p 6 of the judgment which has been placed before the Court. I shall not refer to the detail of Iam not quite sure of the nature of the argument which it advanced in support of the motion. I do not think that it is for this Court to give directions as to what the form of the Judge's judgment was or is. If a party desires to have a copy of a tape recording of the judgment for a proper purpose then, of course, that tape recording would be made available. But as I have said I am not precisely clear whether the reason for which the tape recording is sought is, in this sense, a proper purpose. This is a matter which may require consideration by the Court when the appeal comes before the Court. The form a judge's judgment takes, ie, his reasons for judgment, is a matter to be determined by the judge. The judge may within appropriate limits revise his judgment in order to ensure that the reasons are the reasons he desires to give for the orders which he made. In those circumstances I do not propose to order that at the moment the tape recording be made available to the parties. This is a matter which ought to be dealt with by this Court when the appeal comes on for hearing. I will direct that the Registrar of the Court obtain the tape recording in question, ie, the tape recording of what Judge Johns said on 26 November 1992 and that that be 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS available to be consulted by this Court when the appeal comes on for hearing. It would be convenient if, pending the hearing, the Registrar made a transcript copy of what appears upon the tape recording so that that will be available to the Court if it is appropriate to consult it when the appeal is heard and the Court, if it sees fit, can then make it available to the parties. I do not suggest in any way that what has been said in Court is not to be available to the parties but, as I have said, the issue does not seem clear to me as to what precise use is to be made of the tape recording of the transcript in this case. That is a matter which, I think, should best be dealt with by the Court when it has heard full argument upon the matter. I note, as Miss Abadee has said on several occasions, no impropriety is suggested in relation to the matter. But before the Court makes final orders in relation to this matter it should have the final submissions of the parties in relation to it. The orders I make therefore are in accordance with what I have said and the indications which I have given. Unless the parties see any reason to the contrary, I propose to order the costs of this motion be dealt with by the Court when it deals with the appeal.