HACHEM v CIMIJOTTA [1996] NSWCA 239

HACHEM v CIMIJOTTA SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL

MAHONEY P

24 June 1996

[1996] NSWCA 239

Mahoney P. This is a motion by the Attorney General seeking, I put the matter generally, leave to appear at the proceeding of the appeal in this matter to address submissions to the Court.

The case is, I am informed, essentially an ordinary accident case. But the issues on appeal relate, the Attorney suggests, to matters of case management of proceedings in the District Court. The grounds of appeal — I am referring to grounds one and two as the only relevant grounds — are grounds which suggest that the judge, by refusing an adjournment, failed to accord the appellant natural justice; and secondly that his Honour erred in law in sitting and continuing to sit after the ordinary sitting times, 'at night-time', as the notice of appeal suggests. I refer in that regard to ground two.

The Attorney seeks to support what the judge has done: at least that is the inference that I draw from what Mr Semmler has put in support of the motion. The essential question has been twofold: first, whether the Attorney should appear in theAppeal as a party or merely as amicus curiae; and second, whether his appearance should be limited to one only of the grounds of appeal.

I do not think that I should impose a limitation of such right of appearance as is to be granted. It is not possible for me to know at this stage without going through all of the evidence and looking at all of the possibilities, whether support for (if I may describe them generally) the case management powers of the judge will involve both issues. I think that is a matter properly to be left to the Court on appeal. I am disposed to order that such right of appearance as the Attorney is to be given should extend to both of the grounds of appeal in question.