ROGERS v WENTWORTH [1994] NSWCA 268

ROGERS v WENTWORTH SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY JA, HANDLEY JA and BROWNIE AJA 5 October 1994

[1994] NSWCA 268

Priestley JA. WENTWORTH: We understand from Mr Rogers" solicitors that Mr Rogers will not be appearing today, and nor will his solicitor.

PRIESTLEY JA: I imagine you are referring to a letter dated 27 September 1994. That is not completely clear to me, although it seems fairly clear. What I mean is we will have the matter called outside the court.

(Matter called three times outside the court: no appearance.)

Handley JA. WENTWORTH: I seek to hand up further copies of correspondence between Mr Russo and Khan & MacLean dated 27 September 1994, 28 September 1994, 4 October 1994, and a further letter of 4 October (handed up). Your Honours will note the signatory on the last letter is an employed solicitor.

HANDLEY JA: A Young is the junior partner?

Priestley JA. WENTWORTH: That is right, the new partner.

PRIESTLEY JA: I will have this marked as Exhibit A, a bundle of letters dated 27 September 1994 from Khan & MacLean, a letter of the same date from Khan & MacLean, a letter dated 28 September 1994 from Khan & MacLean, a letter dated 4 October 1994 from Russo & Partners and a letter dated 4 October 1994 from Khan & MacLean.

WENTWORTH: Your Honours will note on the letter of 28 September the defendant notes they intend to file a notice of ceasing to act, and we are unaware if that has been done.

PRIESTLEY JA: I think the substantial thing is it appears that Mr Rogers is on notice of these proceedings being listed today and he has been called. He is not here. There is no reason why the proceedings should not go forward.

WENTWORTH: We would say that the notice of motion which is filed returnable today would also be in the same category.

PRIESTLEY JA: When I say the proceedings should go forward, they are the proceedings listed for today. You seek to add to them. I will see what those prospective additions consist of.