UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK and ORS v AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD and ORS [1994] NSWCA 46

UNITED STATES TRUST COMPANY OF NEW YORK v AUSTRALIA and NEW ZEALAND BANKING GROUP LTD

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY JA 12 December 1994

[1994] NSWCA 46

Mahoney JA I direct that the hearing of the appeal be expedited - by "appeal" I mean all the proceedings under the appeal - and that it be referred to the Registrar to fix a date for hearing, having regard to the exigencies of the court list. The matter appears to be one which would require a significant degree of expedition.

I direct that the parties file and exchange between themselves written submissions, those written submissions to be exchanged at least two weeks before the date on which ultimately the appeal is set down for hearing.

I am informed that an application is made also for leave to adduce fresh evidence. The parties recognise that this will be dealt with by the court dealing with the matter. Application has been made that this be dealt with in advance, for reasons which are suggested to be appropriate, but which I have not considered. It is obviously appropriate that that application be dealt with by the court which will hear the appeal ultimately. Accordingly, when the date for hearing has been fixed and there is some indication of the court which will hear the appeal, then that application should be brought before the court.

I will formally stand over the application for leave to adduce fresh evidence to the hearing of the appeal, but I will reserve to any party liberty to restore the application to the motion list on seven days' notice to the other parties. In that way, when the information as to the hearing of the appeal is available, the parties can then bring the matter before the court and deal with it accordingly.

I do not say the court will necessarily hear the application before the hearing of the appeal, but the court will then be in a better position to deal with it.