MARSHALL v BROOKES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL KIRBY P 6 March 1995 [1995] NSWCA 275 PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE — service of documents — address for service — necessity to provide — aborted hearings before Registrar — costs and delays incurred by failure to provide address for service — held: Appellant ordered to pay such costs. Kirby P. Mr Brookes is prosecuting his appeal on his own behalf and on behalf of his wife. However, he has not done so efficiently. He has not conformed to the Rules of Court. This has involved many abandoned, or useless, appointments before the Registrar for the purpose of settling the appeal index and otherwise. Part of the problem has arisen from the apparent disinclination of Mr Brookes to give an address for service. Whilst a litigant in person is entitled to prosecute his own appeal, that being an important civil right, he cannot do so in a way which causes delay, cost and inconvenience to his opponents. He must give an address for service which is within the distance of 3 kilometres from the General Post Office in Sydney or at a document exchange or otherwise as the Rules require. See Supreme Court Rules Pt 9 r 4. See also SCR Pt 65 r 1(7). On 27 February 1995, Mahoney JA did not make orders as to costs. He left it until this day and to the judge hearing the proceedings today. That duty has now fallen to me. Unfortunately, I have not had the benefit of any submissions from Mr Brookes or from Mrs Brookes. Their names were called outside the court. They did not appear. On the basis of the material placed before me it does seem clear, however, that costs have been needlessly incurred for which Mr and Mrs Marshall should now be protected. The orders which I therefore make are that the opponents, Mr and Mrs Brookes, pay the costs of Mr and Mrs Marshall of the first appointment to settle the appeal index on 20 April 1994; the second appointment on | July 1994; the third appointment on 21 July 1994; the fourth appointment on 1 September 1994; the fifth appointment on 20 September 1994; the sixth appointment on 8 November 1994; the seventh appointment on 8 December 1994; the hearing before Mahoney JA on 27 February 1995; and the application for substituted service which was made to the Registrar on 1 February 1995. This last hearing was occasioned by Mr Brookes" failure to provide an addressfor service complying with the Rules. The opponents must also pay the costs of the proceedings before the Court today. I will arrange for copy of these reasons and orders to be provided by my Associate to Mr Brookes at the now given address for service: C/- PO Box 613, St Ives, New South Wales. It would be open to Mr and Mrs Brookes to apply to the Court to vacate the orders now made in their absence. However, they would have to demonstrate very good reasons as to why, once again, they chose to absent themselves from this Court notwithstanding the order which Mahoney JA made in Mr Brookes" presence returning the matter before the Court today. They would also have to 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS show that there would be utility in permitting them to agitate the costs of the many attendances occasioned by the way they have conducted the appeal to date. Orders accordingly. Counsel for the claimants: FG Lever Solicitors for the claimants: Swaab and Associates Counsel for the opponents: No appearance Solicitors for the opponents: No appearance