CROCKER v COAL AND ALLIED OPERATIONS PTY LIMITED SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES — COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY P and PRIESTLEY JA 8 July 1996 [1996] NSWCA 130 Mahoney P. When the matter was called on this morning counsel appearing for the applicant for leave to appeal indicated that he was less than fully instructed and for reasons that he has referred to which are recorded in the transcript he sought an adjournment. Having regard to what has been said from the Bar table it may be that little purpose will be served by the adjournment. However, the Court has before it only the summons for leave to appeal at the moment and the two letters of 5 July 1996, reference to which is recorded in the transcript. In the circumstances the Court feels that it ought to grant an adjournment so that counsel for the applicant can be properly instructed. It will do that upon the terms that the applicant pay the costs of today in any event. When the matter comes before the Court no doubt the applicant will then seek to show precisely what purpose will be served by the granting of leave to appeal and will be in a position to argue whether leave to appeal is necessary having regard to the fact that there has been a final dismissal of the proceeding itself in the District Court. If an appeal were brought (with an extension of time) against that dismissal, questions would, of course, arise as to whether and to what extent the applicant could contest the dismissal having regard to the refusal of an extension of time by his Honour Judge Nash in 1993. But that is not a matter upon which the Court need express any opinion at the moment. The Court will therefore stand the matter over for two weeks and will make the order for costs to which I have referred. Orders accordingly.