AKHRAS v BRIDGESTONE AUSTRALIA LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA, CLARKE JA and POWELL JA 15 May 1995 [1995] NSWCA 11 Priestley JA. This is an application by Mr Edward Akhras for an extension of time to file a Notice of Appeal against orders which were made on 18 August 1980 by his Honour Judge Langsworth of the Workers" Compensation Commission, as it then was. Mr Akhras has presented his own case this morning for an extension of time. He handed up to the court a transcript of what took place before his Honour Judge Langsworth on 18 August 1980 as well as transcript of an earlier hearing before his Honour Judge Coleman on 28 March 1980. From the documents which Mr Akhras made available to the court it appears that when his case was before his Honour Judge Coleman his counsel withdrew. Judge Coleman then stood the matter over. It later came on for hearing before Judge Langsworth on 18 August 1980. On that day counsel who had withdrawn on the previous occasion appeared for Mr Akhras. Mr Akhras tells the court today that what happened on 18 August 1980 was not something which happened of his own free will. He mentioned a number of details supporting his assertion that the order should not have been made on 18 August 1980 in the way that it was because of the way in which he was induced to agree to it. The transcript of what happened on that day shows that Judge Langsworth made proper efforts to ensure that Mr Akhras understood what was happening. What was happening was that his right to weekly compensation and other benefits under the Workers" Compensation Act was being redeemed for a lump sum of $15,000. The record shows that Judge Langsworth carefully considered the case and, as I have already said, made sure so far as he could that Mr Akhras understood what was happening. The order was made and, from what Mr Akhras told us this morning, the court understands that the redemption sum became available to Mr Akhras. Subsequent events have led him to believe that for him to have proper treatment for his health justice requires that the judgment of 18 August 1980 be set aside and the matter reheard. He has asked the court today, in effect, whether that is the right way for him to proceed. On the materials before the court, what happened in 1980 happened completely regularly. There is nothing in what Mr Akhras has told us which would justify the court in granting an extension of time to appeal against a judgment given so long ago and acted on so long ago. Mr Akhras, as I said, was in effect asking the court what he should do about his present situation. The first answer is that there is nothing to be achieved by trying to have the case of 1980 heard again. As to what is the best course for Mr Akhras to take in his present circumstances, the court does not have sufficient information to be able to form any view about that, and Mr Akhras's situation is one where all the court can say is he must seek advice from wherever he can properly get it and take such steps as he is advised. However, those steps will not, 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS so far as the materials available to the court are concerned, include further proceedings in regard to the judgment of 18 August 1980. After I had said on the court's behalf what is already recorded, Mr Akhras sought to address the court further in order to tell the court about what seemsto have been efforts in the Workers" Compensation Commission to reopen the judgment of August 1980. There is no material before us concerning those efforts. It would not be relevant in any event to seeking an extension of time to appeal against the orders of August 1980. What the court is saying today is simply that there is no ground shown, nor is it easy to imagine any, which would justify granting an extension of time to appeal. If there is any avenue open for reopening the matter in what is now the Compensation Court, then that is a matter for that court, but there is nothing that this court can do in regard to Mr Akhras's problems concerning the 18 August 1980 judgment. In view of what Mr Howlett has said as to costs, the court will make the ordinary order in circumstances such as this and dismiss the application for extension of time with costs. Orders accordingly.