Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 92

New South Wales Supreme Court

CITATION : Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 92 HEARING DATE(S) : 20 February 2003 JUDGMENT DATE : 20 February 2003 JURISDICTION: Equity JUDGMENT OF : Hamilton J DECISION : Reasons for judgment corrected in one regard.

CATCHWORDS : PROCEDURE [21] - Courts and Judges generally - Judges - Other matters - Duties - To give reasons for decision - Correction of reasons to remedy inadvertent or clerical error. CASES CITED : Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42 Janine Morris (P) Jack Norman Hanley (D1) Geoffrey Donald Reid (D2) Lynda Maree Cole (D3) Christine Valmae Hayward (D4) PARTIES : Anthony Bodycote (D5) Robyn Janelle Haydon (D6) Daphne Olive Boyd (D7) Beverley Joy Armfield (D8) Gayle Hanley (D9) Cecil Bellchambers (D10) Mariani Holdings Pty Limited (D11) FILE NUMBER(S) : SC 2650/97 COUNSEL : In person (P) P T Taylor (D1-11) SOLICITORS : In person (P) Parker & Kissane (D1-11)

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES EQUITY DIVISION

HAMILTON J

THURSDAY, 20 FEBRUARY 2003

2650/97 JANINE MORRIS v JACK NORMAN HANLEY & ORS JUDGMENT 1 HIS HONOUR: As of today, the plaintiff's solicitor has ceased to act and Mrs Morris now appears in person. I have been handed on her behalf today four documents by way of written submission. They are entitled respectively Submission, Plaintiff's Submission, Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission and Schedule A of Plaintiff's Supplementary Submission. 2 The second of them, the document entitled Plaintiff's Submission, goes to the question of costs, as to which I indicated in my previously delivered reasons for judgment Morris v Hanley [2003] NSWSC 42 ("my judgment") that I should accept further submissions from the parties. That matter will be disposed of in this way. Although Mrs Morris has presented a written submission in some detail, she has asked me for four weeks to prepare further submissions. This is not in reality objected to on behalf of the defendants and I propose to give her for this argument the first suitable day I have after the expiry of the four weeks for which she has asked. Some of the matters set out in the Plaintiff's Submission are not really by way of submission, but are evidentiary in nature, in that there are facts stated in them that were not in evidence in the proceedings before me. Mrs Morris must understand that, although I am able to hear any submissions based on the facts that are already in evidence, I cannot on the question of costs take into account additional facts, unless those facts are put into evidence before me. If there are any matters that Mrs Morris wishes to rely on in relation to costs that are factual and are not already in evidence, they must be put into evidence at the time of the further hearing by way of bringing forward further affidavits to that effect or in some other appropriate way. When I make orders after the delivery of this judgment, I shall give directions for the bringing forward of any further evidence. 3 Now that Mrs Morris' solicitors have ceased to act and Mrs Morris appears in person, she will need to file a notice of address for service and, before she leaves this Court this afternoon, I shall ask her to state orally in open court an address for service so that a means of communication with her is clearly established. I shall also ask her to go to the Registry before she next appears in court and there file a notice of address with which I am sure she will receive any necessary assistance. 4 The first of the documents that she has submitted to me, entitled Submission, makes complaints about various portions of my judgment and what she perceives as omissions from it. I have read her document. Largely it asks me to make findings other than those that I made, which I shall not do at this stage. Insofar as it complains about omissions, I do not deem that those omissions need to be remedied. There is one exception to this. In paragraph [4] of my judgment appears the statement, "During 1967 [the company] was showing losses of about $1,000 per week."