CACHIA v WALKER SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL PRIESTLEY JA and SHELLER JA 23 September 1996 [1996] NSWCA 86 Priestley JA. This matter is an application for expedition which was heard by Registrar Jupp initially two weeks ago pursuant to rules which recently came into force giving him the powers of a judge of appeal in regard to various proceedings including applications for expedition. Registrar Jupp refused the application. In the course of giving reasons for his refusal he said that under the Court's present listing arrangements the appeal is likely to be heard in the second half of 1997, whether or not an order for expedition is made. The applicant had earlier received an indication from the Court that it would be considerably later than that that his appeal would be heard. However, Registrar Jupp, who is intimately acquainted with the timetabling of appeals in this Court is directly aware of the present situation and what he said in his reasons is to the knowledge of the Court correct. Pursuant to Section 46 of the Supreme Court Act the appellant Mr Cachia applied to discharge or vary the order of Registrar Jupp refusing theapplication for an expedited hearing. When the matter came before the Court this morning the Court raised with the parties the question of whether there might be some difficulty in light of Sections 46 and 46B of the Supreme Court Act and the rules relating to the Registrar's powers, if two rather than three judges heard the matter. It became unnecessary to investigate the possibility that there might be a difficulty involved as both Mr Cachia, the claimant before the Court today, and Mr Modder, the legal representative of the opponent, agreed that they wished the Court as presently constituted, that is of two judges, to hear and dispose of Mr Cachia's application. The basis of Mr Cachia's application was that although his appeals arose out of claims for damages for personal injury arising from motor car accidents his appeals involved matters which did not usually arise in appeals from cases of that kind and that it was of urgent importance to him personally for reasons over and above those applicable to most appellants that his appeals should be heard out of order in the sense that they should be taken ahead of appeals of other litigants which would ordinarily be heard before his. Mr Cachia's reasons for seeking an earlier hearing of the kind just mentioned have some force, however in virtually every appeal the Court sees there are reasons why it should be heard earlier than it can be heard in the course of the Court's usual procedures, which involve a great many appeals and a limited number of judges. Bearing in mind that in any event Mr Cachia's appeals should be heard in the second half of next year, and bearing in mind that even if he were to begranted orders for expedition the appeals could not come on for hearing in light of the Court's present commitments until next year in any event and after taking into account the various reasons he has advanced for an order for expedition the Court does not see any error in the Registrar's conclusion that expedition should not be 2 UNREPORTED JUDGMENTS granted in this case. The reasons for taking the case out of the ordinary course are not in the Court's opinion sufficient to warrant the exceptional hearing date which Mr Cachia has asked for. The Court will therefore refuse to discharge or vary the order made by Registrar Jupp. We must therefore dismiss your application today, Mr Cachia. MODDER: My instructions are to seek costs for today. 've written to Mr Cachia outlining what the respondent's position is. PRIESTLEY JA: What's the date of that letter? MODDER: I think it's the 18th or the 19th. PRIESTLEY JA: Of this month? MODDER: Yes. PRIESTLEY JA: Do you have that letter, Mr Cachia? MODDER: I received it last Friday. PRIESTLEY JA: We'll have a look at that, Mr Modder. PRIESTLEY JA: The Court thinks the usual order for costs should be made. Party and party costs rather than indemnity costs are appropriate here. The application is dismissed with costs. Orders accordingly.