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. On 31 March 1995 there was no appearance for the appellant before the Registrar and he then listed the matter to come on before a Justice of Appeal at 9.30am today. There was no appearance for the appellant. Mr O' Sullivan for the respondent told the Court that, although the matter had been listed to come on today before a single Judge at 9.30, by some mischance it was listed yesterday 5 April 1995 before the President. No parties appeared before the President and the Court record shows that he struck the appeal out for want of prosecution. Mr O' Sullivan was not here yesterday because he was expecting to be here today. He suggests to the Court the appropriate procedure would be to revoke the order made yesterday and then deal with the matter afresh today, today being the day for which it was properly listed and of which notice was given to both the solicitor on the record and the appellant personally at his last known address. I 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS think that is a sensible course to take and I do revoke yesterday's order and restore the matter to the list for hearing this morning. In view of the circumstances I have recited I think it is appropriate I should order that the appeal be struck out for want of prosecution and that the Registrar 5 should notify the appellant of that order. Orders accordingly.