HOOPER v NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION [1995] NSWCA 198

HOOPER v NEW SOUTH WALES CRIME COMMISSION

SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

PRIESTLEY JA 6 April 1995

[1995] NSWCA 198

Priestley JA. The appellant in the matter now before the Court was the plaintiff before Levine J seeking certain orders relating to a sum of $26,000-odd in which he was claiming an interest.

Levine J dismissed his application and entered judgment against him on | April 1993. Subsequently the plaintiff filed a notice of appeal and then an amended notice of appeal. According to an affidavit filed this morning on behalf of the respondent on 7 September 1993 the legal representatives of the appellant and the respondent attended before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal and the appeal index was settled. The Registrar directed inter alia that the Appeal Books were to be lodged and served on 22 October 1993. That never happened.

In February this year the Registrar gave notice to the appellant and the respondent of a callover before the Registrar on Friday 31 December 1995. The Registrar notified the solicitor on the record for the appellant of the callover date and also gave notice the Registrar was concerned about no Appeal Book having been filed and certain other directions which had been made in 1993 by the Registrar not having been complied with.

The solicitor in charge of the matter for the respondent wrote to the principal of the firm of solicitors on the record for the appellant and, on 22 February 1995, the firm on the record for the appellant wrote saying they had not had any contact with the appellant for some time, they thought he had dispensed with their services and that it would be appropriate for the respondent to seek to contact him direct.

There was further correspondence then directed to that firm of solicitors by the solicitor for the respondent. There is no further reply appearing in the affidavit. In the letters from the respondent to the appellant's solicitors the obligation of that solicitor to comply with the rules if he was no longer acting for the appellant was drawn to his attention. Notwithstanding that it seems that that firm of solicitors remains on the record for the appellant.