30. Transcript SC 12 December 2000
THE SUPREME COURT
OF NEW SOUTH WALES
COMMON LAW DIVISION
SULLY J
TUESDAY 12 DECEMBER 2000
020137/00 - JOHN WILSON v STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES
The plaintiff appeared in person
Mr Nicholls appeared for the defendant
HIS HONOUR: What is the application that is before the court?
NICHOLLS: It is the state's application for summary dismissal of the statement of claim filed by Mr Wilson.
HIS HONOUR: Let me have the file. Mr Nicholls, give me your assistance. There is somewhere a
notice of motion filed by Mr Wilson.
NICHOLLS: Filed by the state, that was filed on 17 May.
HIS HONOUR: It has to do with the statement of claim filed by Mr Wilson on 11 April 2000. I have got that. How
have pleadings progressed or have they not progressed beyond application to strike out the statement of claim?
NICHOLLS: That's right.
WILSON: You have no jurisdiction-
HIS HONOUR: I understand. Mr Wilson, sit down and I will hear you on that point in a moment.
WILSON: I thought jurisdiction should be clarified before a word is said.
HIS HONOUR: It will be clarified before the matter is heard. There was a notice of motion filed on 17 May?
NICHOLLS: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: I hand you down the document that I have got. Just confirm that
that is the notice of motion about which you are speaking.
NICHOLLS: Yes, that is the motion.
HIS HONOUR: Thank you. In relation to that, I imagine there have been affidavits filed in support of the notice of
motion, is that right?
NICHOLLS: There are two affidavits relied upon. One has been filed and that was filed on 17 May 2000.
HIS HONOUR: Just a moment. It is an affidavit of?
NICHOLLS: Natalie Jane Adams.
HIS HONOUR: Again I will hand you down what I have in the court file. Just check that that is the one about which we are speaking.
NICHOLLS: That's correct. Can I hand
up a further affidavit sworn on 11 December 2000 by Neil Richard Guy. I seek leave to file it and rely on it.
HIS HONOUR: We will come back in a moment with that one. Those are the only affidavits that you have
filed or will tile, as the case might be, upon which your notice of motion depends?
NICHOLLS: Subject to this further affidavit.
HIS HONOUR: There is only one affidavit, one to be filed, upon which you want to rely, if we go on.
NICHOLLS:That's correct.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, just before we come to the question of jurisdiction, I
will be glad if you would help me to sort out the formalities of your side of the record. First of all, have you filed any affidavit in connection with the notice of motion to strike out your statement of claim?
WILSON: No, because it should go before the jury.
HIS HONOUR: But you have not filed any affidavits in answer to the affidavit of Natalie Jane Adams?
WILSON: No.
HIS HONOUR:And there are no affidavits, I take it, that you are wanting to file at this stage?
WILSON: Not today.*
HIS HONOUR: I understand. So there is the preliminary point that you wish to take concerning the
jurisdiction of the court, is that right?
WILSON: That's right.
HIS HONOUR: Just tell me simply and clearly what is the point you take.
WILSON: That you have no jurisdiction in this matter to hear o~
judge the whole or any part of this matter. If you proceed your actions would be unlawful and malicious. Malicious being defined as premeditated, designed to do evil and injure me and the people of Australia. You will be
denying natural justice. I would like to ask you a series of questions.
HIS HONOUR: The court is not here to answer questions.
WILSON: Before you answer, I would like you to swear on the bible to tell the truth
and nothing but the truth so help you God.
HIS HONOUR: The court is not here to answer questions.. How do you make good that the court has no jurisdiction?
WILSON:I am not talking about the court, you are the judge.
HIS HONOUR: I am the court, for the purposes of this application.
WILSON: You are not. You have no jurisdiction in this matter. I have named you as being
one of the judicial officers implicated in this case. The officers I have named on 9 November are James Wood, David Hunt, Terence Greenwood, John Hamilton, Mathew Clarke, Alan Abadee, Kirby, Toohey, Dawson, Brian Murray,
Caroline Simpson, David Levine, Peter Hidden, Kenneth Handley, Paul Stein, Ian Allen, Gaudron, John Dunford, Timothy Studdert, Graham Barr, Megan Latham, and your name, Brian Sully, Rex Smart, Hackett, Steve Jupp, Murray
Gleeson, William Fisher, Penman, Reginald Blanche, Michael Campbell, Ian Pike, Brian Beaumont, Rodenick Meagher, Dyson Heydon, and Charles Sheller. I have already named you as being implicated.
HIS HONOUR: I do not quite understand. What do you mean?
WILSON: In the transcript of 9 November in the Supreme Court before Carruthers AJ on p 7 line 48. Also in the affidavit- -
HIS HONOUR: I want to follow what
you are putting. I want to see what is recorded in the transcript. Pardon .me a moment while I do that. What was the basis upon which those particular names were chosen?
WILSON: Because they were all implicated in this
affair. Affair meaning collection of cases which started in 1996 when I first brought an action against the St George Bank over uncertainty of terms.
HIS HONOUR: What am I supposed to have done?
WILSON: You have denied the right of the trial by jury. I have already prepared for you, on 6 September-
HIS HONOUR: When?
WILSON: 1999.
HIS HONOUR: Do you have the transcript?
WILSON: I am just looking for it now. Yes, here it is.
HIS HONOUR: May I have a look at it, I do not have that?
WILSON: The judgment is attached to that, as well.
HIS HONOUR: I have read that.
WILSON: To expand upon that point, last week I distributed what I call press releases explaining judges judging themselves. I have several copies of that. I would like to pass up a copy for you and f or the other side.
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
MFl #1 PRESS RELEASE ON THE PRELIMINARY POINT AS TO JURISDICTION.
WILSON: Further to the point of your lack of jurisdiction, are you employed by the defendant?
HIS HONOUR: I am listening to your submission.
WILSON: Are you?
HIS HONOUR: You are not here to ask questions.
WILSON: I am here to clarify the judges' jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: What are your submissions on the proposition that the court has no jurisdiction?
WILSON: I submit that you are employed by the defendant and therefore you are ineligible to judge any part of this case.
HIS HONOUR: Do you say that no judge of this Court has any jurisdiction over any part of the proceedings commenced by your statement of claim?
WILSON: It must be by a jury. That's the only tribunal which could be competent, independent, and impartial.
HIS HONOUR: But I want to be clear about the submission, it is that no judge of this Count has
jurisdiction to hear and judge or in any way to dispose of any part of the proceedings commenced by the plaintiff's statement of claim filed on 11 April; is that the essence of the submission?
WILSON: There is more
to it. There is the role of a jury. The role of a jury is very briefly summarised in a videotape put by the Sheriff's Office of the Attorney General.
HIS HONOUR: That's the obverse side of the submission you put
to me. The only tribunal having any jurisdiction of that kind is a jury?
WILSON:Is a jury.
HIS HONOUR: That is your real submission.
WILSON: Oh, yes.
HIS HONOUR: I understand. And how in your submission is the jury to be empanelled?
WILSON: It is empanelled by the court.
HIS HONOUR: But the court has no jurisdiction-
WILSON: I am saying no judges-
HIS HONOUR: Who empanels the jury?
WILSON: The normal procedure of empanelling the jury.
HIS HONOUR: What is the normal procedure, as you understand it, of empanelling a jury?
WILSON: My understanding is
that jury notices are sent out, people come into court, they go through a qualifying or question and answer period to determine whether they are eligible on the ground of being competent, independent, and impartial. Once they
have satisfied those to the satisfaction of both sides, which is the plaintiff and the defendant, then the jury can be empanelled.
HIS HONOUR: How does that actually happen? Who does the empanelling of the jury?
WILSON: It is empanelled by the oath.
HIS HONOUR: Who administers the oath?
WILSON: The sheriff-
HIS HONOUR: Wrong. Before whom is the oath sworn?
WILSON: Before God.
HIS HONOUR: Partly right. In imperatorial terms, before whom is the oath sworn?
WILSON: Before the court.
HIS HONOUR: Who is the court?
WILSON: The court is the judge and jury.
HIS HONOUR:
But the jury has not been empanelled. It follows that the judge is at least entitled to administer the oath and do the other formalities that are necessary to empanel the jury, in order that the jury may have proper standing in
the proceedings.
WILSON: The judge can act as Clerk of the Court and do necessary paperwork, in order to administer justice.
HIS HONOUR: That is completely clear: To do necessary paperwork and to administer justice.
WILSON: It is their responsibility not the judge's. The purpose of doing the paperwork is so that justice can be
administered.
HIS HONOUR: So that justice can be administered. Does the clerical work that the judge is entitled to do, do you submit, extend to controlling the good order of the conduct of the proceedings before the
jury, so that the rules of evidence are complied with and the parties have a proper chance to explain to the jury whatever their cases are, respectively?
WILSON: Yes, I think the plaintiff is entitled to inform the jury
of their responsibilities, that the responsibilities of the jury is to determine the facts, determine what is the law, judge the justice of the law, decide if the law is good if it is appropriate to that particular case, to
judge the moral intentions of the parties, and to vote purely on their consideration and not to dictate to any party in the proceedings.
HIS HONOUR: It is the practice of the court for the judge to give the jury such
assistance by way of direction and instructions that the jury might require in the matter of law as distinct as to the facts. Do you contend that the court has no jurisdiction to do that?
WILSON: The court is the jury
and the jury will decide what the law is. It will not be thrusted upon them by any party. Evidence shall be presented that this is the certain law. In fact, the jury has a duty to nullify bad laws.
HIS HONOUR: That is
completely clear. Thank you. Is there any case law that you want to cite in support of any of those propositions?
WILSON: I can go back to my files and bring up cases if necessary. I do not think I brought any with me. I
have a few instances here which I have just taken of f the internet. I am quite happy to submit that.
HIS HONOUR: Yes. I will have a look at it. I noticed that these are all United States authorities.
WILSON:I got that off the internet.
HIS HONOUR: Are there any Australian authorities?
WILSON: If you are looking at English cases, there is the 1670 case of William Penn where a jury refused to convict William
Penn because they considered that the law was bad. That is a precedent, as f an as English law is concerned.
HIS HONOUR: Do you have a copy of it?
WILSON: Probably not.
HIS HONOUR: I take it, this is the only copy of this document that you have?
WILSON: At the moment. It is on my computer.
HIS HONOUR: I will have it marked in due course as NFl 2 on the present preliminary point.
Do you have any Australian authorities?
WILSON: I do not know.
HIS HONOUR: What's your next submission.
WILSON: It is to do with the fact that a jury is indispensable. I refer to this videotape made
by the Sheriff's Office with the introductory segments by Spigelman CJ, Chief Justice of New South Wales, who said about juries that they are an essential part in the protection of personal liberties. He said the word
"essential". Essential means indispensable, necessary, all important, crucial, imperative, mandatory, it cannot be dispensed with.
We are talking about the administration of justice. I have a legal definition
of what is justice out of the Oxford Legal Dictionary. It says, "moral ideal that the law seeks to uphold in the protection of rights and the punishment of wrongs. Justice is not synonymous with law. It is possible for a
law to be called unjust."
HIS HONOUR: I understand all of that. In connection with this preliminary point that you are taking, can you tell me this, Mr Wilson-
WILSON: That you have no jurisdiction.
HIS HONOUR: No, you have told me that. You can take it that I understand with complete clarity that that is what you are wanting to argue.
WILSON: Or any judge.
HIS HONOUR: You can take it that I understand that.
What was the result of the way in which Mr Acting Justice Carruthers dealt with the matter on 9 November? His Honour seems to have had the idea that you might be given some legal assistance of some kind, is that right?
WILSON: Yes, and Justice Kirby before him. That is dealt with in the transcript of 9 November.
HIS HONOUR: But can you tell me what actually happened? Did you apply f or Legal Aid?
WILSON: Justice Carruthers made out an order.
HIS HONOUR: He gave a certificate.
WILSON: He made out an order and I have a copy of the order. The Principal Registrar, Nenida Johnson, did line up a barrister to
give advice and an instructing solicitor. The solicitor faxed me the advice from the barrister, who is Kim Mornissey, and I rejected that as being no good advice. In fact, I put that into an affidavit, which I have already
filed.
HIS HONOUR: Could you tell me this. I see that from the concluding paragraph of Carruthers J's judgment on 9 November that his Honour-
WILSON: There was no judgment.
HIS HONOUR: -- that his
Honour asked the Registrar that the matter be referred back to him after appropriate pro bono assistance had been tendered to you.
WILSON: I got in touch with his associate and she said he is no longer available because
he had been put in the Court of Criminal Appeal. He then sent a copy of my letter to Justice Kirby and he is then appointed you.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand. What other submission do you have on this preliminary point?
WILSON: It is to do with what is a court. A count by definition is a place where justice is administered. Justice must be seen to be done. So on the issue of bias, I am suing the Crown according to the Crown Proceedings
Act under the title of the State of New South Wales.
There is another pertinent question I have to ask you, even though you don't want to. Have you sworn an oath of allegiance to the Queen?
HIS HONOUR: That question is noted.
WILSON: In pursuit of justice, bias, and jurisdiction, it is a necessary question.
HIS HONOUR: You have no right to ask it. Why are you making a submission like that to
the court in support of your preliminary point? What's your next submission?
WILSON: That you by swearing an oath of allegiance to the Queen are sworn to uphold what she has sworn to uphold in her coronation oath. I
would like to find a copy of it-
HIS HONOUR: There is rio need. I am familiar with the terms of the coronation oath.
WILSON: You are aware that she's sworn to execute justice with mercy? You realise she has
accepted the Holy Bible as Royal law? Do you understand what Royal law is?
HIS HONOUR: Go on.
WILSON: Royal Law is mentioned in Matthew Chapter 22 Verses 35 to 40. I would just like to be allowed to find that.
Matthew Chapter 22 Verse 35:
"Then one of the lawyers asked him a question testing him saying, 'Teacher, which is the greatest commandment of all in the law?' Jesus said to him, 'You shall love the
Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. You shall love your neighbour as yourself.' And the final verse 40 says: 'On these two commandments
and all the law and all the prophets'
So that is why bad laws must be nullified. Any law that attempts to deny the right of trial by jury certainly qualifies to be nullified.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand. What's your next submission on this question of jurisdiction?
WILSON: I will just have a look. So you have already got the copy of judges judging themselves. Then there is this
circular I put out entitled "Judges versus Democracy." (Handed up and added to MFl 1.)
HIS HONOUR: I have read that.
WILSON: At the trial before a jury, I will be submitting not only-
HIS HONOUR:
You need not tell me what you are submitting to the jury, that is not yet a question for me. The question is whether I have jurisdiction to deal with the Crown's notice of motion. You submit that I do not have jurisdiction.
I simply want to know the propositions of law upon which you rely in support of the submission that I have no jurisdiction to deal with the notice of motion that is before me.
WILSON: That is contained on a CD of my website. I would like to submit it
HIS HONOUR: I reject. It is not relevant.
WILSON: It is because it contains many, many issues along the path-
HIS HONOUR: I am sure it does. I reject it. What is your next submission, please?
WILSON: My submission goes along the same lines as the argument I have already put many, many times, that an Australian citizen is
entitled to the right of trial by jury and cannot be denied it.
HIS HONOUR: I am familiar with the argument. Is there anything in text that you wish to put in support of your present submission that I have no
jurisdiction to entertain the notice of motion?
WILSON: I would like to submit my publication which contains many of the arguments relating to the incidences of a jury and the fact that a judge cannot judge in his own
cause.
HIS HONOUR: I reject that document.
WILSON: You are rejecting that?
HIS HONOUR: I reject the document because it adds nothing to the very succinct statement in the two prereleases which are NFl 1
which were completely clear in what they have to say as to the argument that you are trying to develop. What is your next submission?
WILSON: What happened to the transcript of Acting Justice Carruthers, do you still have that?
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I do.
WILSON: In that I mention the fact that motions must be heard by a jury in this case. Have you
read that paragraph?
HIS HONOUR: Yes.
WILSON: I am referring in particular to the Supreme Court Procedure Act (1903) section 3. (Read)
HIS HONOUR: Has that not Act been repealed by the Supreme Court Act (1970)?
WILSON: It would not matter if it had because any rights cannot be disposed of even if an Act is repealed. That is in the Interpretations Act.
HIS HONOUR: So any Act repealing the 1903 Act by the Supreme Court Act of 1970 would be ineffective because?
WILSON : Because it says in the Interpretations Act-
HIS HONOUR: What section, please?
WILSON: Section 30 of the Interpretations Act (1987) number 15 (read). So that right is not abolished by any Act that supersedes it.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, I understand. What is the next submission?
WILSON: The
requirements for a jury, as I say, I have outlaid in the affidavits which I have been filing and I think there is about fourteen or fifteen affidavits, and it is all contained within already filed affidavits. Have you read all
those affidavits?
HIS HONOUR: No. You told me at the beginning that there were no affidavits that you wanted to rely on for the reason that I had no jurisdiction anyway.
WILSON: No, you asked-
HIS HONOUR: Mr Wilson, I will ask the court reporter to go back to the beginning and read out what was said.
THAT PART P 2 MARKED WITH AN ASTERISK READ.
FOR JUDGMENT SEE SEPARATE TRANSCRIPT.
WILSON: I ask
for an adjournment so I can prepare a case under your particular directions that it will be heard by a judge. As far as I am concerned, you have no jurisdiction. You have ignored the issues. You have made judgment in this
before.
HIS HONOUR: I understand entirely all of that. Your preliminary objection is over-ruled. Now what do you want to do?
WILSON: Well, I place all my assertions on the fact that you do not have jurisdiction. I
still maintain that. So therefore I require time to onganise an adequate defence against this notice of motion from the Crown with whom you are employed and with whom you are not impartial.
HIS HONOUR: How much time do you say you want?
WILSON: I would say at least possibly five weeks.
HIS HONOUR: What are your movements, Mr Wilson, in the second week of January, that is the week of 7 or 8 January?
WILSON: Nothing I can think of, at the moment. Just regular work.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Nicholls, will you be available?
NICHOLLS: I am not available at that time, your Honour.
HIS HONOUR: I am thinking of
this, it is desirable that this matter be brought to a head one way or the other, sooner rather than later.
WILSON: I require time to get a transcript of what you said so I can inform the people of Australia of your
judgment. have to put an application to the Reporting Services and to get it back and then have to feed it out to other Australian citizens from whom I am drawing advice and support.
HIS HONOUR: I understand. I imagine
you know that the Court Reporting Service will take out a transcript of what I have said. I will correct it, if that is necessary. I do not mean I will alter it, I mean will correct it. The it can be engrossed and made
available to you in the normal way. There is no problem about that. I would hope that will be done by this week, so it will be available for you, say, from the beginning of next week.
WILSON: I require time for my
supporters to offer their advice because there is an awful upsurge of the Australian people against the injustices perpetrated by judges and the outrage is becoming quite paramount.
HIS HONOUR: I think you should
understand two things. I hope you will not mind my saying this. You are perfectly entitled, as far as I am concerned, to say, within the limits of the law, whatever you please to your fellow citizens. But, first, there is no
purpose served by making to me a speech of that kind. None at all. Secondly, I would like you to understand this, just in case you have any doubt about it, I am not afraid of any of those threats that I understand you to be
making. You achieve absolutely nothing by making those military rhetorical statements in court. Make them if you wish, however that cuts absolutely no ice with me.
WILSON: It is natural justice.
HIS HONOUR:
Natural justice may be thought to entail a certain civility and prudent balance in the kind of allegation that one makes in public. But that is also a matter for you. Five weeks, you say?
WILSON: Natural justices entails that you cannot judge in your own cause.
HIS HONOUR: You would be available on 5 January?
WILSON: I would prefer at least another week after that.
HIS HONOUR: When are you back, Mr Nicholls?
NICHOLLS: Approximately 24 January or thereabouts. We oppose any adjournment.
HIS HONOUR: I will grant it simply because the preliminary point has been over-ruled. I
propose, or if not me somebody else, to deal with the notice of motion in proper form and that requires that Mr Wilson should have a proper opportunity to put on affidavits, if that is what he wants to do. I will give
directions as to the timing, but in the case of somebody, who has Mr Wilson's altitude and who is appearing for himself, I think that is the proper way to do it.
NICHOLLS: I do not wish to be say anything against
what you are suggesting, however, the circumstances of this case are peculiar, in the sense that this motion was filed on 17 May this year. Mr Wilson has had ever opportunity to file affidavits and, in fact, he has filed in
excess of ten affidavits in the proceedings.
HIS HONOUR: Let me put the proposition the other way. Has there been prejudice to the present applicant in the course that I propose?
NICHOLLS: The only prejudice is in respect of costs.
HIS HONOUR: There is no problem as to costs, that can be protected by proper order in a form which both can and will be enforced.
NICHOLLS: I cannot point to
substantive prejudice except to say this: Mr Wilson has been afforded every opportunity by this Court to file affidavits and to obtain legal advice.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Nicholls, he has had advice and it is his right not to
accept it and he does not accept it. That being so, I think he should be given reasonable opportunity to think through what he wishes to do in connection with the hearing of the notice of motion which is going to proceed in the
court. I have no idea what assistance Mr Wilson may wish to take. I think within the bounds of what is reasonable he is entitled to have that opportunity. I have no idea whether Mr Wilson will wish to rely formally upon the
fourteen affidavits which he tells me has filed or some of them or none of them or some additional affidavit or affidavits that he wants to file.
NICHOLLS: Yes. I can't say anything further than what I have.
HIS HONOUR: Mr Nicholls, let me ask you this. It happens that I am the vacation judge on 16 January.
WILSON: There is issue as to whether I wish to appeal against your interlocutory judgment. What time limit do I have? I
believe it is 28 days.
HIS HONOUR: Yes, that is affected by the commencement on Monday of next week of the fixed summer vacation during which generally time does not run, is that right?
NICHOLLS: That is correct.
I think Mr Wilson requires to file an application for leave to appeal which has to be filed within fourteen days.
HIS HONOUR: Why then do I not do this: Stand the hearing of the notice of motion to a date to be fixed by
the list judge. Direct that the matter go before the list judge for mention on Friday of this week by which time it ought to be possible for both of you and Mr Wilson to have an idea of what you are wanting to do. The list
judge can then set the necessary time limits and make all the necessary orders; is that not the sensible thing to do?
NICHOLLS: Would your Honour be minded to make directions in connection with the filing of affidavits?
HIS HONOUR: No, not until I know what Mr Wilson wants to do, whether he is going to make an application for leave.
I think the simplest way is to require him and you to make up your mind, respectively, by end of
term on Friday, so the list judge can do what is necessary to bring the matter to a head in some proper way.
NICHOLLS: As your Honour pleases. The difficulty is this, there has been a long history of litigation which you
have not touched on because it is not relevant to this aspect of the motion this morning. It is stretching back to three or four years. Mr Wilson has taken every opportunity to appeal every interlocutory judgment or indeed any
judgment over that period.
HIS HONOUR: But why is that a matter of complaint? He is entitled to do that.
NICHOLLS: In respect of this particular application, there is no utility in further adjourning the matter.
HIS HONOUR: Let us speak frankly about the matter. Whether we like it or not, the phenomenon of litigants appearing in person is becoming an increasing frequent one in the court. There is no point in being overwhelmed
about it. They are extremely difficult matters to deal with, for the judge is expected to do the impossible. There is no point in complaining about the situation. That is the fact on the ground. So far as it concerns the
matters that we are discussing, the litigation commenced years ago, but it was against the filing of a statement of claim. What was done in connection with the incident is done. The courts have to look at those things and there
is no profit in rehatching all of that. The question is, is the amended statement of claim justiciable in the court? Where is the merits? Now that just cannot be dealt with in a series of short sharp blows.
NICHOLLS: My
submission is this, Mr Wilson has been given every opportunity by the court to present his case and has been given the opportunity to obtain legal advice which he has not accepted.
HIS HONOUR: I have some sympathy with
that point of view. But once again, let us be practical. Mr Wilson has a ruling of substance made against him on the preliminary point. I do not see that it is unreasonable that he wants some opportunity to look at the text of
what has been said in the judgment and to consider whether he wishes to make an application for leave to appeal. I do not think that he is entitled to have, as it were, at his dissertation an open end opportunity, but a
reasonable opportunity to consider that. That alone would justify the course I was proposing to you a moment ago. There is no prejudice at all that I can see. The substantive hearing of the notice of motion will stand to Friday
of this week, 15 December at 10 am before the list judge, Justice Kirby. The matter is referred to his Honour by this Court so that his Honour can make appropriate orders as to the listing of the hearing of the notice of motion
any other ancillary order that might be appropriate. Mr Wilson, will you make sure that my associate has your address to which a copy of your judgment can be sent? Do you have a fax?
WILSON: Yes.
HIS HONOUR: We
will fax a copy of the judgment when the text of it has been typed out. Mr Wilson, I ask this of you. On the Friday when the matter is before Kirby J, I think you ought to be in a position to tell the judge whether or not you
are going to make an application to the Court of Appeal for leave to appeal against my interlocutory judgment this morning. You would understand, as matter of commonsense, that that is a very important practical matter. If you
have made up your mind that you want to make an application to the Court of Appeal f or leave to appeal, then Justice Kirby will make certain facilitating orders. If you have decided that you do not want to do that, that you
want to fight out the substance of the notice of motion, then the judge will fix that hearing for a day on which both you and Mr Nicholls can be available and on which the matter can be litigated to some sort of finality.
WILSON: I think at this point, the appeal against your judgment is crucial to the administration of justice.
HIS HONOUR: I have nothing to say about that. It is a matter for you as to whether or not you want to do
that. All I am saying to you is I will see to it that you have a copy of the reasons that I gave this morning and that you have them prior to Friday. We should be able to let you have them tomorrow. The court will want to know
on Friday what decision you have made in principle about making an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. Would you just give consideration to that and be able to tell the court on Friday where you stand in
that regard?
Any outstanding questions of costs are reserved..
