BLACKWELL v DIRECT ACCEPTANCE & INVESTMENTS PTY LTD [1995] NSWCA 47

BLACKWELL v DIRECT ACCEPTANCE & INVESTMENTS PTY LTD SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY JA, SHELLER JA and COLE JA 6 November 1995

[1995] NSWCA 47

Priestley JA. This application was made primarily to determine whether leave to appeal was needed in regard to orders made by Young J. The court is of the opinion that the matter is one which should be heard by the court as upon a full appeal in any event whether or not leave is needed. For further precaution I think we should make an order now saying leave is granted. If it should happen that leave was necessary then the order is superfluous. The existing notice of appeal can be continued as a basis of the hearing of the matter.

The parties are anxious that the matter be heard expeditiously. Like most matters in the court it is desirable that it be heard expeditiously but not all matters can be granted expedition and this one does not seem to fall into the category where the court, as its list presently stands, should grant expedition. However, the question has been discussed as to whether the matter may not be suitable to go into a short appeals list. The parties have told the court they think it is, particularly if written submissions are filed.

The court therefore directs that on the occasion of the next appearance before the Registrar in connection with the settling of the appeal book he be informed that the court is of the view that the matter should be referred to the judge in charge of the short appeals list and then it may be, depending on that judge's control of the matter, that it would obtain some expedition.

The question of written submissions has been mentioned in the discussion and one possibility mentioned was that it should be left to the parties to get their written submissions ready. That seems to be suitable in the present case when both parties seem anxious to proceed. If any hitches occur in regard to that then the matter can be dealt with by the Registrar or judge in charge of the short appeals list and unless the parties want to argue the matter it appears to be a case where the costs of the day in these applications should be costs in the appeal. Is that accepted?