New South Wales Supreme Court CITATION : Rowett v Coleman & Anor [2002] NSWSC 133 CURRENT JURISDICTION: Common Law FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 12144/01 HEARING DATE(S) : 18 February 2002 JUDGMENT DATE : 18 February 2002 PARTIES : Michelle Rowett v Steven John Coleman and RSPCA JUDGMENT OF : Michael Grove J at 1 COUNSEL : In person (Plaintiff) No appearance (Defendants) SOLICITORS : Smythe & Mallam (Defendants) CATCHWORDS : INTERLOCUTORY ORDERS - STAY PENDING DETERMINATION OF COMPETENCY OF APPEAL - NO APPEARANCE OF OPPONENT DECISION : STAY GRANTED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COMMON LAW DIVISION MICHAEL GROVE J Monday 18 February 2002 12144/01 - MICHELLE ROWETT v STEVEN JOHN COLEMAN JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: With some difficulty, I believe I have some understanding as to why this matter is before the Court. It appears that the plaintiff, Ms Rowett, who appears in person, is dissatisfied with a decision made by Hidden J which itself was effectively a proceeding in the nature of an appeal against orders made in the Local Court at Port Macquarie. Those orders related to the exercise of power under a relevant statute concerning the disposal of certain horses by the Royal Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. Some horses are involved, Ms Rowett says she is the owner of those horses. 2 When Hidden J dismissed her summons, he ordered a stay for a period of time in order to enable Ms Rowett to contest his judgment by way of an appeal. An appeal was lodged subsequently. Thereafter, various judges have dealt with applications to extend that stay. Eventually it came before Sully J on 22 January who stayed execution of the orders made by Hidden J, upon condition that a sum of $10,000 as additional security for costs be paid. 3 Ms Rowett has informed me that that amount has not yet been paid. However, she brought the matter back before Sully J on 13 February last. A somewhat cryptic Associate's record of proceedings shows that an application was refused. Ms Rowett appeared in person and Mr Davies appeared for the defendant. Exactly what the application was is not clear but I gather it was to further continue the stay. 4 His Honour Sully J granted liberty to both parties to apply by notice in writing on 24 hours. This has prompted Ms Rowett to send a notice of motion to the opponent by facsimile transmission on 14 February last. That was a method of communication approved by his Honour. Ms Rowett informs me that she has also sent an original copy to the representatives of the defendant. Be that as it may, there has been no appearance on the part of the defendant today. 5 I am informed by Ms Rowett that the appeal against Hidden J's order is listed before the Registrar of the Court of Appeal on 4 March next. She has apparently been given some notice somehow that it is the intention of the defendant on that occasion to move to have her appeal struck out as incompetent. 6 I regard the present circumstances as particularly unsatisfactory. However, in the absence of the defendant it seems to me that I should maintain the status quo for the plaintiff, at least until the scheduled date of 4 March. In so doing I express considerable reservations, having regard to her obvious breach of the condition imposed in January but again Ms Rowett tells me, and there is no one here to contradict her, that Sully J indicated to her that an application should be made and she has interpreted that as the application presently before the Court, which is for a further stay of the orders made by Hidden J; although her application is that such a stay be open-ended in the sense that the terminating date is described as "until the matter has been finalised". 7 I am unwilling to make such an order but I am willing, in the somewhat obscure circumstances that the matter has been left before the Court and in the absence of any contribution from the defendant, to stay the matter until the scheduled date, which I assume is correct, of 4 March. 8 Accordingly, on the motion filed in court, I order a stay of the orders made by his Honour Hidden J on 18 December 2001, up until 4pm on 4 March 2002, or further order of the Court. ********** Last Modified: 03/06/2002 DISCLAIMER - Every effort has been made to comply with suppression orders or statutory provisions prohibiting publication that may apply to this judgment or decision. The onus remains on any person using material in the judgment or decision to ensure that the intended use of that material does not breach any such order or provision. Further enquiries may be directed to the Registry of the Court or Tribunal in which it was generated.