Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rixon [2014] NSWSC 491

Supreme Court New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Commissioner for Fair Trading v Rixon [2014] NSWSC 491 Hearing dates: 03/04/2014 Decision date: 03 April 2014 Jurisdiction: Common Law Before: Garling J Decision: Application made in writing by Mr Rixon for an adjournment is refused. Catchwords: PROCEDURE - civil - interlocutory issues - adjournment of hearing; application for - application by letter - contempt proceedings - defendant not present - unclear explanation for absence - defendant not legally represented - matter of public interest - defendant on notice of proceedings - defendant did not exercise liberty to apply - Civil Procedure Act 2005; s 58 - interests of justice Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 Category: Interlocutory applications Parties: Commissioner for Fair Trading (P) Matthew Geoffrey Rixon (D) Representation: Counsel: G Sargenson (P) No appearance (D) Solicitors: M Nicoletti (P) File Number(s): 2012/00382762

EX TEMPORE Judgment 1In these proceedings, when the matter was called this morning, there was no appearance for the defendant, Matthew Geoffrey Rixon.

Evidence of Mr Rixon 2Yesterday, the Court was provided with a folder of documents apparently from Mr Rixon. The folder of documents, which I will mark MFIA, contains a letter dated 1 April 2014 addressed to the Court. It says, amongst other things, the following: "Please find contained in this document the reasons and evidence to demonstrate my request for an adjournment at your Honour's pleasure. In brief, the reason for my adjournment request is that I am due to appear in court in the Australian Capital Territory for another matter so I have not been able to obtain proper legal representation in the allocated time frame and cannot appear in two courts at once. If the matter was heard today, it would result in a possible unjust verdict and would deny me due justice. I beg forgiveness from your Honour for not attending today and trust that your Honour sees the document I have provided is sufficient to seek an adjournment." 3Set out underneath that letter as part of the same document but entitled "Affidavit". In that affidavit, Mr Rixon deposes, without any formality, to the following facts: (a)that he resides in Canberra and is self-employed in the ACT as a carpenter and handyman, (b)that he "will be in the Australian Capital Territory for a hearing which was set down before this date from 2 April 2014 to 4 April 2014"; (c)that he "will be in the Australian Capital Territory for a hearing which was set down before this date from the 2nd April 2014 to the 4th April 2014". 4He then goes on to set out a range of other allegations and assertions and concludes his affidavit with the following: "Your Honour, I also ask how I can be found guilty of a crime I didn't even know I was committing in this injunction. Furthermore, what more punishment could your Honour possibly give me because of these incidents. I have had to move out of the State to gain work. I have lost my family due to the shame it has inflicted. I have a hate page and I am constantly harassed by the department and the media. Will they not stop until I am hanging from a tree? I have moved out of the State and have my life back on track and trying to rebuild it so I ask your Honour to please do one of the following: One, adjourn for at least four months; two, dismiss this case all together; three, order mediation where we can renegotiate the injunction as it is too broad."