Upload
vuongdang
View
213
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Foreword by Chief Justice of NSW 1
1 2009: An Overview 2• RefurbishmentoftheLawCourtsBuildinginQueensSquare 3• Notablejudgments 3• Courtoperations 3• Educationandpublicinformation 3• ConsultationwithCourtusers 3
2 Court Profile 4• TheCourt’sjurisdictionandDivisions 5• Whomakesthedecisions? 9
-TheJudges 9-Appointmentsandretirements 10-TheAssociateJudges 11-TheRegistrars 11
• SupportingtheCourt:theRegistry 12
3 Caseflow Management 13• Overviewbyjurisdiction 14• RegionalsittingsoftheCourt 19• Alternativedisputeresolution 20
4 Court Operations 21• Overviewofoperationsbyjurisdiction 22
–Timeliness 26 –UseofAlternativeDisputeResolution 28
5 Education and public information 29• Judicialofficereducation 30• Publiceducationprogramme 31• TheroleofthePublicInformationOfficer 32
6 Other Aspects of the Court’s work 33• UniformCivilProcedureRules 34• JusticeLink 34• LawCourtsLibrary 34• AdmissiontotheLegalProfessionand
appointmentofPublicNotaries 35• AdmissionundertheMutualRecognitionActs 37• AdministrationoftheCostsAssessmentScheme 38• ProBonoScheme 38• JudicialAssistanceProgram 38
7 Appendices 39• i.Notablejudgments–summariesofdecisions 40• ii.Courtstatistics–comprehensivetableofstatistics 55• iii.TheCourt’sCommitteesandUserGroups 62• iv.Otherjudicialactivity:Conferences,Speaking 69
Engagements,Publications,AppointmentstoLegalandCulturalOrganisations,DelegationsandInternationalAssistance,andCommissionsinOverseasCourts
CONtENtS
2
ThejudgesoftheCourtareconsciousofthefactthatthispublicconfidenceintheadministrationofjusticecannotbetakenforgrantedandmustbecontinuallyearned,sothatthatconfidenceiscontinuallyreplenished.AReviewofthischaractercannotprovideanythingotherthanageneralindicationoftheextenttowhichtheCourthasperformeditsdutiesinsuchamannerastojustifythehighleveloftrustthatthepublicofNewSouthWalesdisplaysintheoperationsoftheCourt.
Oneofthewaysinwhichthistrusthasbeenearnedduringthecourseofthisyearisbytheparticipationofmembersofthepublicintheentireprocessoftheadministrationofjustice,whetheraslitigants,aswitnesses,orasjurors.EachyearthousandsofcitizensofNewSouthWalesacquiredirectexperienceoftheoperationsoftheCourtinoneoftheseways.
Iamconfidentthat,duringthecourseof2009,theruleoflawwasadministeredbythejudicialofficersoftheCourtwithahighlevelofindependence,impartiality,integrity,efficacyandefficiency.Ihavenodoubtthatthatwillcontinuetobethecase.
JJSpigelmanAC
ThisReviewsetsoutanoverviewofthestructure,organisationandproceduresadoptedbytheCourtforthepurposesofdischargingitsconstitutionalresponsibilitiespursuanttothecommonlawandstatutesofboththeNewSouthWalesandCommonwealthParliaments.TheReviewalsoprovidesinformationoftheCourt’sstewardshipoftheresourcesmadeavailabletoit.
ThefulldetailoftheCourt’scontributiontothepeopleofNewSouthWalesexistsinthelargevolumeofdocumentationproducedbytheCourt–encompassingtensofthousandsofpagesofjudgmentsandhundredsofthousandsofpagesoftranscript.Thebaldfiguresoffilings,disposalsandpendingcaseload,uponwhichthisReviewreportsinsomedetail,doesnotreflecttherichnesswhichiscontainedintheconsiderablevolumeofdocumentationwhichtheCourt’sjudicialofficersandregistrarsgenerateinthecourseoftheyear.
AnindicationofthecontributionmadebytheCourt,andoftheeffectivenessandefficiencyofitsprocedures,canbegleanedfromthisReview,whichcontainsinformationofaquantitativekindabouthowtheCourthasdealtwithitscaseloadandthespeedwithwhichlitigantshavehadtheirdisputesresolved.
However,theprimarymeasureoftheCourt’sperformancemustbequalitative:fidelitytothelawandthefairnessofitsprocessesandoutcomes.ThisReviewsetsoutinshortsummaryafewofthecasesdecidedintheyear2009.Thisisbutasmallsampleofthe2,000orsoseparatesubstantivejudgmentsdeliveredbythejudicialofficersoftheCourt.
FOREWORd by ChIEF JUStICE OF NSW
1
1 2009: An Overview
• refurbishment of the Law Courts Building in Queens Square
• notable judgments
• Court operations
• education and public information
• Consultation with Court users
2
LawDivision,forthefourthconsecutiveyearallcriminaltrialssetdownandreadyforhearingwereabletoproceedbeforeajudge;notrialwas“notreached”.
DetailedanalysisoftheCourt’scaseloadanditsachievementsagainsttimestandardsarefoundinChapter4ofthisReview.ThischaptershouldbereadinconjunctionwiththecomprehensivestatisticaldatainAppendix(ii).
Education and public informationManyjudicialofficersupdatedanddevelopedtheirskillsandknowledgeduringtheyearbyattendingconferences,seminarsandworkshops,someofwhichwerespecificallytailoredtotheCourt’sneeds.ThePublicInformationOfficercontinuedtoprovidethemedia,andconsequentlythegeneralpublic,withreliableinformationaboutcontentiousissuesandcourtproceedings.Duringtheyear,theRegistrarsaddressedover1,000studentsandmembersofthegeneralpublic,givingtheattendeesauniqueinsightintotheCourt’sworkanditsplaceintheState’slegalsystem.ThesearesomeoftheactivitiesfeaturedinChapter5oftheReview.
Consultation with Court usersTheCourtcontinuedtoworkcloselywithitsuserstoimprovesystemsandproceduresthroughanetworkofCommitteesandUserGroups.RepresentativesontheCommitteesandUserGroupsincludejudicialofficers(fromthisCourtandotherjurisdictions),seniorregistrystaffandrepresentativesfromjusticeagenciesandthelegalprofession.AlistoftheCourt’sCommitteesandUserGroupsandtheirmembersduring2009formsAppendix(iii)tothisReview.
Refurbishment of the Law Courts building in Queens SquareInAugust,asignificantmilestonewasreachedinthestagedrefurbishmentoftheLawCourtsBuildingwiththeopeningofthenewcourtroomsonlevel9.TheCourtnowhasalargecourtroomatitsdisposalthatisproperlyequippedtoaccommodatecivillitigationinvolvingmultipleparties.Boththislargecourtroomandthethreeconventionallysizedcourtroomsonlevel9arealsonowbetterequippedtohandletechnologyassociatedwithmodernlitigation,includingvideolinkswithimprovedsoundrecordingandaudiocapabilities,andsuperiorfacilitiesforevidenceplayback.
Thenewcourtroomsonlevel9representthefirstcomprehensiveupgradetotheCourt’sfacilitiessincetheBuilding’sconstructionin1977.Worksofasimilarscalehavealreadycommencedonlevel7and12.Theseworksaredueforcompletioninthelatterhalfof2010andareexpectedtodeliverimprovedfacilitiesforCourtusers.
Notable judgmentsDuring2009,theCourtofAppealhandeddown433judgments,andtheCourtofCriminalAppealdelivered310.Inrespectofitscriminalandciviltrialwork,theCourtdelivered1,477judgmentsatfirstinstance.Somejudgmentswereparticularlynotableeitherfortheircontributionindevelopingthelaw,theirfactualcomplexityorthelevelofpublicinteresttheygenerated.SummariesofaselectionofthesejudgmentsappearinAppendix(i)tothisReview.
Court operationsAvoidanceofexcessivedelayremainsapriorityfortheCourtandsomesignificantpositiveoutcomeswereachievedin2009.TheageofthependingcaseloadsofboththeCourtofAppealandCourtofCriminalAppealwerewithinthenationalstandard,with90%ofpendingcasesagedlessthan12monthsold.ThelistingdelayintheCourtofAppealalsoreducedbytwomonths.In2009,substantiveappealswereheardonaveragewithin1.5monthsfromthedatetheyweredeemedreadyforhearing;bycontrast,in2008,theperiodofdelaywas3.5months.Similarly,thelistingdelaysmeasuredintheGenerallistandProbateListintheEquityDivisionhalvedduringtheyear,fromanaverageof5monthsin2008,to2.5monthsin2009.IntheCommon
3
2 COurt PrOfiLe
• the Court’s jurisdiction and Divisions
• who makes the decisions?
• Supporting the Court: the registry
4
Court of AppealTheCourtofAppealisresponsibleforhearingappealsincivilmattersagainstthedecisionsofthejudicialofficersoftheSupremeCourt,othercourts,commissionsandtribunalswithintheState,asprescribedintheSupreme Court Act 1970.
Court of Criminal AppealTheCourtofCriminalAppealhearsappealsfromcriminalproceedingsintheSupremeCourt,theIndustrialCourt,theLandandEnvironmentCourt,theDistrictCourtandtheDrugCourt.Appealsmaychallengeconvictionsandsentencesimposeduponindictmentorinthetrialcourt’ssummaryjurisdiction,orinterlocutoryordersmadebythetrialcourt.AppealsfromcommittalproceedingsintheLocalCourtmayalsobeheardincertaincircumstances.
SittingsoftheCourtofCriminalAppealareorganisedonarosterbasiswhilsttakingintoaccounttheotherregularjudicialdutiesandcommitmentsoftheJudgeswhoformtheCourt’sbench.TheJudgeswhositintheCourtofCriminalAppealaretheChiefJustice,thePresident,theJudgesoftheCourtofAppeal,theChiefJudgeatCommonLawandJudgesoftheCommonLawDivision.During2009,theCourtofCriminalAppealbenchescomprisedatleasttwoCommonLawjudges,withthepresidingjudgebeingeithertheChiefJustice,thePresident,aJudgeofAppeal,ortheChiefJudgeatCommonLaw.
the Supreme Court of New South Wales: our place in the court systemThecourtsysteminNewSouthWalesisstructuredonahierarchicalbasis.TheSupremeCourtisthesuperiorcourtofrecordinNewSouthWalesand,assuch,hasaninherentjurisdictioninadditiontoitsspecificstatutoryjurisdiction.
TheSupremeCourthasappellateandtrialjurisdictions.Theappellatecourtsarethe:
• CourtofAppeal,and• CourtofCriminalAppeal.
ThetrialworkofthecriminalandciviljurisdictionsisdividedbetweentwoDivisions:
• CommonLawDivision,and• EquityDivision.
Thisstructurefacilitatestheconvenientdespatchofbusinessinaccordancewiththeprovisionsundersection38oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.
Section23oftheSupreme Court Act 1970providestheCourtwithalljurisdictionnecessaryfortheadministrationofjusticeinNewSouthWales.TheSupremeCourthassupervisoryjurisdictionoverothercourtsandtribunalsintheState.TheCourtgenerallyexercisesitssupervisoryjurisdictionthroughitsappellatecourts.
TheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWalesandtheLandandEnvironmentCourtofNewSouthWalesarespecialistcourtsofstatutoryjurisdiction.TheJudgesofthesecourtshavethestatusofSupremeCourtJudges.
TheDistrictCourtofNewSouthWalesisanintermediatecourtwhosejurisdictionisdeterminedbystatute.TheLocalCourtsitsatthebottomofthehierarchyofNewSouthWalescourts,andhasbroadcriminalandciviljurisdictions.TherearealsotribunalsandcommissionsinNewSouthWaleswithstatutorypowerssimilartotheDistrictandLocalCourts.
Figures2.1and2.2overleafillustratethecourthierarchyinNewSouthWalesandthegatewaystoappealinthecriminalandciviljurisdictions.
thE COURt’S JURISdICtION ANd dIVISIONS
5
Common Law divisionTheDivisionhearsbothcriminalandcivilmatters.Thecriminalmattersheardinvolvehomicideoffencesandoffenceswheretheprosecutionseekslifeimprisonment.OthermattersinvolvingseriouscriminalityorthepublicinterestmaybebroughtbeforetheCourtwiththeChiefJustice’sapproval.TheJudgesoftheDivisionalsohearbailapplications,mattersconcerningproceedsofcrime,andpost-convictioninquiries.
TheDivisiondealswithallseriouspersonalinjuryandcontractualactions,inwhichtheCourthasunlimitedjurisdiction.ThecivilbusinessoftheDivisionalsocomprises:
• claimsfordamages;• claimsofprofessionalnegligence;• claimsrelatingtothepossessionofland;• claimsofdefamation;• administrativelawcasesseekingthereviewof
decisionsbygovernmentandadministrativetribunals;and
• appealsfromLocalcourts.
Equity divisionTheEquityDivisionexercisesthetraditionalequityjurisdictiondealingwithclaimsforremediesotherthandamagesandrecoveryofdebts,includingcontractualactions,rightsofproperty,anddisputesrelatingtopartnerships,trusts,anddeceasedestates.TheDivisionhearsapplicationsbroughtundernumerousstatutes,includingtheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth),theSuccession Act 2006,andtheProperty (Relationships) Act 1984.TheDivisionalsohandlesadiverserangeofapplicationsintheareasofAdmiraltylaw,Commerciallaw,TechnologyandConstruction,ProbateandtheCourt’sAdoptionandProtectivejurisdictions.
6
FIGURE2.1NSW COURt SyStEM – CRIMINAL JURISdICtION
Note:TheabovediagramisasimplifiedrepresentationoftheappealprocessinNSW.Actualappealrightsaredeterminedbytherelevantlegislation.
* TheCourtofCriminalAppealmayhearsomeappealsinmattersrelatingtosection32AoftheOccupational Health and Safety Act 2000
** SomeappealsaremadetotheDistrictCourtofNSW.# SomeappealsfromcommittalproceedingsmaybemadetotheCCA.
drug Court of NSW**
Local Courts#
district Court of NSW
Court of Criminal Appeal
high Court of Australia
Land and Environment Court of NSW
Industrial Court of NSW*
Supreme Court of NSW
7
FIGURE2.2NSW COURt SyStEM – CIVIL JURISdICtION
Note:TheabovediagramisasimplifiedrepresentationoftheappealandjudicialreviewprocessinNSW.Actualappealrightsaredeterminedbytherelevantlegislation.
* NoappealliestotheCourtofAppealfromdecisionoftheIndustrialCourtofNSW;however,someproceedingsmaybebroughtbywayofjudicialreview.
** SomeclaimsmayinsteadbemadedirectlytotheCourtofAppealpursuanttoSection48oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.
High Court of Australia
Court of Appeal
Consumer trader and tenancy
tribunal
Administrative decisions tribunal**
Local Court
Land and Environment Court of NSW
Industrial Court of NSW*
Supreme Court of NSW
dust diseases tribunal
GREAt(Government and
related employees Appeal tribunal)
Workers Compensation Commission
district Court of NSW
8
Judges of AppealTheHonourableJusticeMargaretJoanBeazleyAOTheHonourableJusticeRogerDavidGilesTheHonourableJusticeDavidHargravesHodgson
AOTheHonourableJusticeMurrayHerbertTobiasAM
RFDTheHonourableJusticeRuthStephanieMcCollAOTheHonourableJusticeJohnBastenTheHonourableJusticeJosephCharlesCampbellTheHonourableJusticeRobertMacfarlanTheHonourableMrJusticePeterWolstenholme
YoungAO
Chief Judge at Common LawTheHonourableJusticePeterDavidMcClellan
Chief Judge in EquityTheHonourableJusticePatriciaAnneBergin
JudgesTheHonourableMrJusticeMichaelBrianGrove
RFDTheHonourableMrJusticeBruceMeredithJamesTheHonourableMrJusticeRobertShallcrossHulmeTheHonourableJusticeCarolynChalmersSimpsonTheHonourableJusticePeterJohnHiddenAMTheHonourableJusticeCliffordRoyEinsteinTheHonourableJusticeMichaelFrederickAdamsTheHonourableJusticeDavidKirbyTheHonourableJusticeRobertPeterAustinTheHonourableJusticeAnthonyGerardJoseph
WhealyTheHonourableJusticeRoderickNeilHowieTheHonourableJusticeReginaldIanBarrettTheHonourableJusticeGeorgeAlfredPalmerTheHonourableJusticeTerenceLionelBuddinTheHonourableJusticeIanVitalyGzellTheHonourableJusticeWilliamHenricNicholasTheHonourableJusticeRobertCalderMcDougallTheHonourableJusticeJohnDavidHislopTheHonourableJusticeRichardWeeksWhiteTheHonourableJusticeCliftonRalphRussell
HoebenAMRFDTheHonourableJusticePeterAnthonyJohnsonTheHonourableJusticePeterMichaelHallTheHonourableJusticeMeganFayLathamTheHonourableJusticeStephenRothmanAMTheHonourableJusticePaulLeGayBreretonRFDTheHonourableJusticeDerekMichaelPrice
TheJudicialOfficersoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesareitsJudgesandAssociateJudges.TheRegistrarsoftheCourthavelimiteddecision-makingpowers.
the JudgesTheGovernorofNewSouthWalesformallyappointstheJudgesoftheCourtfollowingadecisionbyCabinet.Judicialappointmentsaremadeonthebasisofalegalpractitioner’sintegrity,highleveloflegalskillsandthedepthofhisorherpracticalexperience.
TheGovernorappointsjudgespursuanttosection25oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.Section25specifiesthattheCourtwillinclude:aChiefJustice,aPresidentoftheCourtofAppealandsuchotherJudgesofAppeal,JudgesandAssociateJudges,astheGovernormayappointfromtimetotime.TheGovernorisalsoempoweredtoappointqualifiedpersonsasActingJudgesofAppealorActingJudgeswhentheneedarises.
TheChiefJusticeis,byvirtueofhisoffice,aJudgeofAppeal,andtheseniormemberoftheCourtofAppeal.TheothermembersoftheCourtofAppealarethePresidentandtheotherJudgesofAppeal.TheJudgesoftheCourtareassignedtospecificDivisions,andordinarilyconfinetheiractivitiestothebusinessofthoseDivisions.Incertaincircumstances,theChiefJusticemaycertifythataparticularJudgeshouldactasanadditionalJudgeofAppealincertainproceedingsbeforetheCourtofAppeal.
TheSupreme Court Act 1970alsoprovidesthattheChiefJusticemayappointJudgestoadministeraspecificlistwithintheCommonLaworEquityDivisions.DetailsoftheJudgesassignedtotheselistsin2009canbefoundinthechapterentitledCaseflow Management.
Asat31December2009theJudges,inorderofseniority,wereasfollows:
Chief JusticeTheHonourableJamesJacobSpigelmanAC
PresidentTheHonourableJusticeJamesAllsop
WhO MAkES thE dECISIONS?
9
• TheHonourableJohnPerryHamiltonQC,formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween3Augustand31December;actedasaJudgefor36.5days)
• TheHonourableDavidLoutheanPatten,formerJudgeoftheDistrictCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween9Apriland16November;actedasaJudgefor117days)
• TheHonourableJusticeMonikaSchmidt,aDeputyPresidentoftheIndustrialRelationsCommissionofNewSouthWalesandaMemberoftheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween2Februaryand29May;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor80days)
• TheHonourableRexFosterSmart(actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor137days)
• TheHonourableTimothyJamesStuddertQC,formerjudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor31days)
• TheHonourableBrianJohnMichaelTamberlinQC,formerJudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia(commissioneffectivebetween6Julyand31December;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor32days)
• TheHonourableWilliamVictorWindeyerAMRFDED,formerjudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween17Augustand16October;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor43days)
Appointments• TheHonourableMrJusticePeterWolstoneholme
YoungAOwasappointedaJudgeofAppealon6March2009.
• TheHonourableJusticePatriciaAnneBerginwasappointedChiefJudgeoftheEquityDivisionon6March2009.
• RobertAllanHulmeSCwasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton2March2009.
• RobertGaborForsterwasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton4May2009.
• MichaelJohnSlatterywasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton25May2009.
• DavidLloydDavieswasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton29June2009.
• TheHonourableJusticeMonikaSchmidt,aDeputyPresidentoftheIndustrialRelations
TheHonourableJusticeDavidJacobHammerschlagTheHonourableJusticeIanGordonHarrisonTheHonourableJusticeElizabethLillianFullertonTheHonourableJusticeLucyMcCallumTheHonourableJusticeNigelReinTheHonourableJusticeJulieWardTheHonourableJusticeRobertAllanHulmeTheHonourableJusticeRobertGaborForsterTheHonourableJusticeMichaelJohnSlatteryTheHonourableJusticeDavidLloydDaviesTheHonourableJusticeMonikaSchmidt
Acting JudgesThefollowingpersonsheldcommissionsduring2009.Unlessotherwiseindicated,thejudicialofficer’scommissionwaseffectivefortheentirecalendaryear.
ActingJudgesareaskedtopresideoverspecifichearingsastheneedarises.ThetotalnumberofdayseachpersonactedasaJudgeoftheCourtduring2009isdetailedinbracketsbelow.
Acting Judges and Acting Judges of Appeal (in alphabetical order)• TheHonourableJohnPurdyBrysonQC,former
JudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesandJudgeofAppeal(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppealfor115days)
• TheHonourableKennethRobertHandleyAOQC,formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesandJudgeofAppeal(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppealfor155days)
• TheHonourableJaneHamiltonMathewsAO,formerJudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppealfor114days)
• TheHonourableRonaldSackvilleAOQC,formerJudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppeal157days)
Acting Judges (in alphabetical order)• TheHonourableGrahamRussellBarr,former
JudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween1Octoberand31December;actedasaJudgefor50days)
• TheHonourableBruceMalcolmDebelleQC,formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofSouthAustralia(commissioneffectivebetween1Januaryand31August;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor32days)
10
alongwithapplicationsrelatingtotheadministrationoftrusts,andcertainprobatematters.
Asat31December2009,theAssociateJudgeswere:
• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeJohnKennedyMcLaughlin;
• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeRichardHughMacready,and
• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeJoanneRuthHarrison.
the RegistrarsRegistrarstotheCourtareappointedundersection120oftheSupreme Court Act 1970pursuanttotheprovisionsofthePublic Sector Management Act 2002.TheChiefJusticemayalsocertifyofficersoftheSupremeCourtorLocalCourtstoactasdeputyregistrarsoftheCourtfromtimetotime.
RegistrarsareallocatedtoworkwithintheCourtofAppeal,theCourtofCriminalAppeal,ortooneoftheCourt’sDivisions.However,theyarepermittedtoworkoutsidetheseboundariesifrequired.
RegistrarsareaffordedlimitedpowersoftheCourtundertheSupreme Court Rules 1970andtheUniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005,andundertakesomeofthefunctionsformerlyperformedbyJudgesandAssociateJudges.
TheworkoftheRegistrarscommonlyincludes:
• defendedapplicationsinrelationtosecurityforcosts,discovery,interrogatories,provisionofparticularsandsubpoenas;
• costsdisputesiftheamountinquestionisunlikelytoexceed$20,000;
• unopposedapplicationsfortheremovalofcasesto,orfrom,theDistrictCourt;
• conductingexaminationsundervariousActs,includingtheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)andtheProceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth);
• dealingwithapplicationsforordersundermanyoftheprovisionsoftheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth), suchasthewindingupofcompanies;
• handlingapplicationsasreferredtothembyanAssociateJudge;
• issuingcourtordersandwritsofexecution;and• enteringdefaultjudgments.
CommissionofNewSouthWalesandaMemberoftheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales,wasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton27July2009.
Retirements• TheHonourableJusticeGrahamRussellBarr
retiredon21March2009.• TheHonourableMrJusticeJohnPerryHamilton
retiredon31March2009.• TheHonourableJusticeDavidAndrewIppAO
retiredon13November2009.
the Associate JudgesTheGovernorappointsAssociateJudgestotheCourtundersection111oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.AssociateJudgesareusuallyassignedtoperformworkwithineithertheEquityorCommonLawDivision,butmaybeaskedtoworkoutsidetheconfinesoftheseDivisionsintheinterestsofflexibility.
TheworkoftheAssociateJudgesgenerallyinvolveshearingapplicationsthatarisebeforetrial,certaintypesoftrialworkandworkonproceedingsthattheCourtofAppealoraJudgemayrefertothem.
Applicationsthatarisebeforetrialinclude:
• applicationsforsummaryjudgment;• applicationsfordismissalofproceedings;• applicationsforextensionsoftimetocommence;• proceedingsundervariousActs;and• applicationsforthereviewofdecisionsof
Registrars.
IntheCommonLawDivision,AssociateJudgesconducttrialsofactionsforpersonalinjuryandpossessionofproperty.AssociateJudgesalsohearothertrials(withoutajury)thatarereferredtothembytheCourtofAppealoraJudge,inadditiontoappealsfromtheLocalCourtandvarioustribunals.TheAssociateJudgesalsohandleappealsagainstthedeterminationsofcostsassessors.
IntheEquityDivision,AssociateJudgesdealwithproceedingsundertheFamily Provision Act 1982andtheProperty (Relationships) Act 1984,andapplicationsforthewindingupofcompaniesundertheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth).Theyalsodealwithinquiriesastodamages,oraccountsreferredtothembytheCourtofAppealorEquityJudges,
11
SUPPORtING thE COURt: thE REGIStRy
the Work of the RegistryTheCourtoperateswiththesupportoftheRegistrythatprovidesadministrativeandclericalsupporttotheCourt.Incivilmatters,theRegistryisresponsiblefor:acceptingdocumentsfiledattheCourt;securingthecustodyofcourtdocumentsincludingexhibitsanddocumentsproducedundersubpoena;listingmattersforhearing;issuingcourtprocess;attendingtotheinformationneedsoftheCourt’susersbyprovidingproceduralguidance;maintainingtheCourt’sphysicalfilesandcomputerrecords,andensuringthatallthenecessaryfacilitiesareavailableforhearings.Incriminalmatters,theRegistryprovidessupportinprocessingcommittals,bailapplications,applicationsunderPart7oftheCrimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001andCommonLawDivisioncriminalsummaryjurisdictionproceedings.
InrespectoftheCourtofAppeal,theRegistryprovidesspecialistadministrativeandclericalsupporttotheCourtofAppeal’sjudgesandoffersproceduralguidancetolitigantsandtheirrepresentatives.Similarly,incriminalappealmatters,theRegistryprovidessupporttotheCourtofCriminalAppeal’sjudgesandusers,andalsoenforcesordersconcerningthecustodyofprisoners.
how the Registry is managedTheChiefJusticedirectstheprioritiestobepursuedbytheRegistry.Ingeneral,theprioritiesreflectthecentralaimofmeetingtheexpectationsofCourtuserscompetently,efficientlyandprofessionally.
DaytodaymanagementoftheRegistryishandledbytheChiefExecutiveOfficerandPrincipalRegistraroftheCourt.TheChiefExecutiveOfficerisalsoresponsibleforsecuringandmanagingtheresourcestheNSWAttorneyGeneral’sDepartmentprovidetheCourt,providingexecutivesupporttotheCourt’sjudicialofficersanddevelopingstrategiestoimprovethedeliveryofRegistryservices.TheChiefExecutiveOfficerundertakesthesedutiesincloseconsultationwiththeChiefJustice,otherjudicialofficers,theDepartment,andrepresentativesfromkeyprofessionalbodiesandotherCourtusers.
TheSupreme Court Rules 1970anddelegationsundertheCivil Procedure Act 2005permitRegistrarstodirectlyassisttheJudgesincaseflowmanagement.Forinstance,intheCourtofAppeal,theRegistrardealswithmostinterlocutoryapplications,excludingapplicationstostayjudgmentpendinganappeal;intheCommonLawDivision,aRegistrarconductsstatusandfinalconferencesintheGeneralCaseManagementList,andalsoassiststhePossessionListandProfessionalNegligenceListJudges.
TheRegistrarsmayalsobecalledupontomediatecases.During2009,eightoftheCourt’sRegistrarswerequalifiedmediatorsandavailabletoconductmediationsthroughouttheyearonarosteredbasis.
DeputyRegistrarsarerosteredtoactasDutyRegistrarandprovideproceduralassistancetocourtusersintheRegistryeachday.Theyalsoattendtotheissueofcourtorders,writsofexecutionandothermiscellaneousmatters.
Asat31December2009,theRegistrarswereasfollows:
Chief Executive Officer and Principal RegistrarMeganGreenwood
Manager, Court Services and ProthonotaryJenniferAtkinson(acting)
Registrar, Court of AppealPeterSchell
Registrar, Crime and Court of Criminal AppealGabrielleDrennan
Registrar, Common Law Case ManagementChristopherBradford
Registrars in EquityLeonieWaltonAndrewMusgrave(acting)
Registrar in ProbateJonathanFinlay
Senior deputy RegistrarsPaulStuddertNicholasFlaskasJamesHoward
deputy Registrars EmokeDurkinBhaskariSivaSuzinYooStefanoCalabrettaJonathanCottamCarmelLee
12
3 CASefLOw mAnAGement
• Overview by jurisdiction
• regional sittings of the Court
• Alternative dispute resolution
13
Court of AppealNewappealcasesarereviewedforcompetencyand,ifnecessary,referredbacktolegalrepresentativestoeithersubstantiatetheclaimofappealasofrightorseekleavetoappeal.Applicationsforleavetoappealareexaminedtoascertainwhethertheyaresuitableforhearingconcurrentlywiththeargumentonappeal.
AppealsareallocatedadirectionscalloverdatebeforetheRegistrarwhenanoticeofappealisfiled.Atthatcallover,theappealmaybelistedforhearingiftheappellanthasfiledwrittensubmissionsandtheredappealbook.Furthercasemanagementmaybeorderedwithrespecttolengthyorcomplexappeals.
TheRegistrarcase-managesandlistsmostappealsandapplicationsforleavetoappeal,althoughsomecasesmaybereferredtoaJudgeofAppealforspecialcasemanagement.Urgentcasesareexpeditedandcanbeheardatshortnotice,ifappropriate.TheRegistrarintheCourtofAppealalsodealswithmostinterlocutoryapplications,exceptcontestedapplicationstostayjudgmentspendinganappeal,andapplicationsforexpeditedhearing.
Mediationisofferedtopartiesinappealsidentifiedascapableofresolutionbythisprocess.DetailedstatisticsregardingthenumberofmattersreferredtomediationcanbefoundinAppendix(ii).
FormoredetailedinformationaboutcasemanagementpracticesintheCourtofAppeal,pleaserefertoPracticeNoteSCCA1.
Court of Criminal AppealSince1July2002,pre-appealmanagementprocedureshavebeenimplementedforsentenceandconvictionappealstotheCourtofCriminalAppeal.AccusedpersonsmayinitiallylodgeaNoticeofIntentiontoAppeal,withoutspecifyingtheirgroundsofappeal.TheNoticeofIntentiontoAppealallowstheaccusedpersonsixmonths(orsuchlongertimeastheCourtgrants)tofileanactualappeal.Transcriptsandexhibitsarenowprovidedtoaccusedpersonsfreeofchargetofacilitatethepreparationofanactualappeal.
Casemanagementbeginswhenanappealorapplicationforleavetoappealisfiledintheregistry.Theappealorapplicationislistedforcalloverwithin
OVERVIEW by JURISdICtION
TheCourtmanagestheflowofitscasesfrominceptiontocompletioninanumberofdifferentways,andiscontinuallylookingtoimproveitsprocessesandoutcomes.
CaseflowmanagementstrategiesarereflectedintheUniformCivilProcedureRules,theRulesoftheSupremeCourtandthePracticeNotesissuedbytheChiefJustice.TheJudges,AssociateJudgesandRegistrarsworktogethertoensurethatcasesareresolvedasefficientlyandjustlyaspossible.
Commonly,caseswillbeallocatedtoRegistrarstoestablishthecoreargumentsindisputeanddeterminewhencasesshouldprogresstohearingbeforeaJudgeoranAssociateJudge.ARegistrarmakesdirectionstoensurethatacaseisproperlypreparedforhearing.IfanissuearisesthatfallsoutsidethespecifieddutiesofaRegistrar,heorshemayreferthatcasetoaJudgeoranAssociateJudge.
INtROdUCtION
14
TheDutyJudgealsoconductsanapplicationslisteachMonday.TheapplicationsinthislistaremattersthatcannotbedeterminedbyanAssociateJudgeoraRegistrar.ThesemattersincludeappealsfromtheLocalCourtundertheCrimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001,applicationsforrestrainingorders,applicationsfordeclaratoryrelief,andapplicationstodispensewithajury.Mattersareinitiallylistedat9ambeforeaRegistrartodeterminewhethertheapplicationisreadytoproceed.TheDutyJudgemayspeciallyfixmattersthatcannotbeheardontheMondaytolaterthatweek.
TheDutyJudgedeterminesinterlocutoryapplicationsforrestrainingassetsandissuingexaminationordersunderthe Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990,andProceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Commonwealth).TheDutyJudgealsoconsiders,inchambers,applicationsseekingauthorisationofwarrants,suchasthosemadeundertheSurveillance Devices Act 2007.
Associate Judges’ list TheAssociateJudgesintheCommonLawDivisiondealwithstatutoryappealsfromtheLocalCourt(exceptundertheCrimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001)andtheConsumerTraderandTenancyTribunal.TheAssociateJudgesalsodealwithapplicationsforsummaryjudgmentanddismissal,applicationsforextensionundertheLimitation Act 1969,andopposedapplicationstotransfermattersfromtheDistrictCourt.TheAssociateJudgesmaydealwithothermattersasoutlinedinScheduleDoftheSupreme Court Rules 1970.
MattersallocatedtotheAssociateJudges’ListarecasemanagedbyaRegistrardailyat9am.TheRegistrarrefersapplicationstoanAssociateJudgewhenreadyforhearing.
Lists of the divisionInadditiontotheabove,theworkoftheDivisionisalsodistributedamongstanumberofspecialisedLists.TheseLists(inalphabeticalorder)are:
• AdministrativeLawList;• BailsList;• CriminalList;• DefamationList;
twoweeksoffiling.Calloversareheldfortnightly,althoughspecialcalloverscanbeheldinurgentmatters.Atthecallover,thepresidingRegistrarwillfixahearingdateandmakedirectionsforthefilingandservingofsubmissionsbytheparties.TheRegistraralsocasemanagesmattersthataredeemedtorequirespecialattention.
Generally,threeJudgeshearanappealorapplication.TheChiefJusticemayalsodirectthatmorethanthreeJudgessitonanappealorapplication,particularlyinmattersinvolvinganimportantissueoflaw.Insomecircumstances,theChiefJusticemaydirectthattwoJudgeshearanappealagainstsentence.AsinglejudgehearssentenceappealsfromtheDrugCourtofNewSouthWales,andalsodealswithbailapplicationsandotherinterlocutoryapplicationsintheCourt.
Common Law divisionCasemanagementintheDivisionbeginswhenasummonsorstatementofclaimisfiledintheregistry.Eachsummonsorstatementofclaim(withtheexceptionofdefaultmatters)isgivenareturndatebeforeaJudgeorRegistrarandplacedinaList.AJudgeisappointedtomanageeachList,whiletheCommonLawListJudgemonitorsallmatterslistedforhearingbeforeaJudge.Registrarshandledefaultmattersadministratively.
Common Law List JudgeTheListJudgeallocatesmatterslistedforhearingtospecificjudges.Whendecidingwhichjudgewillhearamatter,theListJudgeconsidersthetypeofmatter,itsestimatedhearinglength,andwhetherthejudgehasotherCourtcommitments.TheListJudgealsohearsvariousapplicationsinmattersalreadylistedforhearing,includingallapplicationsforadjournment.Fromtimetotime,theListJudgewillissuefurthercasemanagementdirectionsinmattersalreadylistedforhearing.JusticePricewastheCommonLawListJudgethroughout2009.
Common Law duty Judge listTheDutyJudgeisavailableeachdaytohearurgentapplications,includingapplicationsforinterlocutoryinjunctions,duringandoutsidenormalCourthourswhenrequired.JudgesoftheDivisionarerosteredtoactastheDutyJudgeforaweekatatimeduringlawterm.AVacationJudgeisrosteredduringthecourtvacationtoperformthissamerole.
15
defamation ListMattersfiledinthisListafter1January2006arehandledinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheDefamation Act 2005.MattersarefirstlistedbeforeaRegistrarfordirections.OncetheRegistrarissatisfiedthattheinitiatingprocessisinorder,heorshewillreferthemattertoaJudgeforfurtherdirectionsandlegalargument.ThepartiesmayalsoasktheJudgetoconsiderifthedisputeshouldbetriedbeforeajury.Ifthejudgegrantsanapplicationfortrialbyajury,thematterwillbesetdownforhearing.Thejurywilldetermineifthematerialinquestionisdefamatoryandifthereisanylawfuldefenceforpublishingthematerial.Ifthejuryfindsthattheplaintiffhasbeendefamedwithoutanylawfuldefencebeingestablished,theJudgewillthendetermineanydamagespayableandresolveanyoutstandingissuesunderdispute.
Mattersfiledbefore1January2006arecasemanagedinanidenticalway,buttheissuesconsideredbythejurydifferslightly.Inthesematters,thejuryisaskedtoconsiderwhetherthemattercomplainedofcarriestheimputationalleged,andifitdoes,whethertheimputationisdefamatory.
TheDefamationListwasmanagedbyJusticeNicholasduring2009.ARegistrarassistsbycase-managingmatterslistedfordirections.PracticeNoteSCCL4governstheoperationoftheList.
General Case Management (GCM) ListThisListcomprisesallcivilcasescommencedbyStatementofClaimthatarenotincludedintheAdministrativeLaw,Defamation,ProfessionalNegligenceorPossessionLists.Itincludesmoneyclaims,personalinjuryclaims,claimsforpossession(excludingland),breachofcontract,personalpropertydamage,maliciousprosecution,andclaimsundertheCompensation to Relatives Act 1897.Thesecasesarecase-managedbyaRegistrarwhoconductsstatusconferencesandfinalconferences.Atthestatusconference,theRegistrargivesdirectionstoensurethecaseisreadyforhearingbythecompliancedateandencouragestheearlyresolutionofdisputesthroughmediationorsettlement.TheproceduresassociatedwiththerunningofthisListaresetoutinPracticeNoteSCCL5.JusticeHoebenmanagedtheGCMListduring2009.
• GeneralCaseManagementList;• PossessionList;and• ProfessionalNegligenceList.
TheChiefJusticeappointsaspecificJudgetoberesponsibleforthemanagementofaListthroughouttheyear.TheJudgesresponsibleforthemanagementofalistduring2009aredetailedbelow.
Administrative Law ListTheAdministrativeLawListreviewsdecisionsofgovernment,publicofficialsandadministrativetribunalssuchastheConsumerTraderandTenancyTribunal.TheAdministrativeLawListoperatesinaccordancewiththeproceduresoutlinedinPracticeNoteSCCL3.
In2009,JusticeHallwasresponsibleforthemanagementoftheAdministrativeLawList.
bails ListApplicationsforbailortoreviewbaildeterminationscanbemadetotheSupremeCourtundertheBail Act 1978inrespectofanypersonaccusedofanyoffence,evenifthetrialwillnotbeheardintheSupremeCourt.Theseapplicationsarelistedthroughouttheyear,includingduringthecourtvacation.CommonLawDivisionJudgesarerosteredonaweeklybasistodeterminetheseapplications.
Criminal ListArraignmenthearingsareheldeachmonthduringLawTerm.Theaimofthearraignmentprocedureistominimisethelossofavailablejudicialtimethatoccurswhentrialsarevacatedaftertheyarelistedforhearing,orwhenaguiltypleaisenteredimmediatelypriorto,oronthedayof,thetrial’scommencement.
Thearraignmentprocedureinvolvescounselatanearlystageoftheproceedings.Thisallowsboththeprosecutionanddefencetoconsiderarangeofissuesthatmayprovideanopportunityforanearlypleaofguilty,orshortenthedurationofthetrial.TheproceduresforarraignmentaredetailedinPracticeNoteSCCL2.JusticeHowiewastheCriminalListJudgeduring2009.
16
Equity duty Judge listAJudgeoftheDivisionisavailableatalltimesforurgentapplications.DutyJudgesarerosteredinblocksoftwoweeks.Ifamatterrequiresanurgentfinalhearing,theDutyJudgewillconsultwiththeChiefJudgeinrespectofthepossibleallocationofanurgentfinalhearingdate.
General listAllcases,otherthanthoseintheSpecialistLists,arecasemanagedbytheRegistrarinEquityintheGenerallist.AnewPracticeNote(SCEq1)wasintroducedin2009toassistthepartieswithidentifyingtherealissuesindisputeandhavingtheircasesmanagedefficiently.
TheRegistrarsetsmattersdownforhearingbeforetheJudgesoftheDivision.During2009,theRegistrarofferedpartiesahearingdatewithinfourmonthsofthefinaldirectionshearing.TheRegistrarwillconsultwiththeChiefJudgeinEquityinrelationtolongand/orcomplexmatters.
Associate Judges’ listTheworkoftheEquityDivisionAssociateJudgesincludesdealingwithcontestedproceduralapplicationsandconductinginquiriesasdirectedbyJudges.TheirworkalsoincludesthehearingofmostapplicationsundertheSuccession Act 2006, theProperty (Relationships) Act 1984,andcertainprovisionsoftheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth).AnAssociateJudgehandlesweeklyreferralsfromtheRegistrar,determiningthosethatcanbedealtwithimmediately,andadjourningthebalance.TheRegistraronlyrefersmatterswherethehearingtimeisnotexpectedtoexceedanhour.MorecomplexmattersarelistedforhearingintheAssociateJudges’listatalaterdate.Urgentreferrals,suchastheextensionofacaveat,maybemadeatanytime.
Specialist Lists of the divisionTheEquityDivision’scaseloadisalsomanagedbyallocatingcertainmatterstospecificListsaccordingtothenatureoftheclaims.TheseListsaresetoutbelowinalphabeticalorder,togetherwiththeidentityofeachListJudgefor2009.
• AdmiraltyList(ListJudge:JusticeRein);• AdoptionsList(ListJudge:JusticePalmer);
Possession ListThePossessionListdealswithallproceedingsfortherecoveryofpossessionofland.ThemanagementoftheListencouragesearlyresolutionofcasesthroughmediation,otheralternativedisputeresolutionprocesses,orsettlement.Casemanagementisalsousedtoclarifytherealissuesindispute.PracticeNoteSCCL6appliestocasesinthisList.JusticeJohnsonwasresponsibleformanagingthePossessionListduring2009.
Professional Negligence ListClaimsagainstmedicalpractitioners,alliedhealthprofessionals(suchasdentists,chemistsandphysiotherapists),hospitals,solicitorsandbarristersareallocatedtotheProfessionalNegligenceList.SpecialisationintheListallowspartiestofocusontherealissuesunderdisputeinthesetypesofclaims.ARegistrarmonitorscasesatregularconferencehearings.Conferencehearingsprovideanopportunityforpartiestodiscussoutstandingissuesinthecase,andprovideaforumformediationbetweentheparties.PracticeNoteSCCL7appliestothisList.
TheProfessionalNegligenceListJudgehearsapplicationsandmakesdirectionsaccordingtothespecificneedsofeachmatter.JusticeHislopmanagedtheListduring2009.
Equity divisionProceedingsintheEquityDivisionarecasemanagedbyRegistrarsandJudgesoftheDivisiontoachievethejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesindisputebetweenthelitigants.TheworkoftheDivisionisadministeredthroughtheGenerallistandanumberofSpecialistLists.
Expedition listCasesareexpeditedwhensufficienturgencyisshown.ApplicationsforExpeditionaremadetotheExpeditionJudgeonFridays.TheExpeditionJudgeonFridays.TheExpeditionJudgecasemanagesallexpeditedcasesandhearsthosecaseswhentheyarereadyfortrial.During2009,theExpeditionJudgeswereJusticePalmer,JusticeBreretonandJusticeRein.
17
Corporations ListAJudgesitseachdayoftheweektohearmostapplicationsandhearingsundertheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)andrelatedlegislation.TheRegistrarmayreferapplicationstotheJudgeonaMonday.TheRegistrardeterminesroutineapplicationstowind-upcompanies,applicationsforleavetoproceedagainstcompaniesinliquidation(limitedtopersonalinjuryactions)andapplicationstoreinstatecompanies.
TheJudgewillgivedirectionsandmonitorpreparationsforhearinginlongermatters,aswellasinothercomplexcorporatecases.CasesmanagedinthisListaregenerallygivenahearingdateassoonastheyareready.
Probate ListTheworkperformedbytheJudgesandtheProbateRegistryconsistsofbothcontentiousandnon-contentiousmatters.Themajorityofnon-contentiouscasesaredealtwithbytheRegistrarandDeputyRegistrars.Thisincludesthegrantingofcommonformprobatewhereapplicationsareinorderandunopposed.
BoththeProbateListJudgeandtheRegistrarshaveprocedureswherebysomesupervisioniskeptoverexecutorsinthefilingofaccounts,andensuringbeneficiariesarepaid.
Incourt,theRegistrarconsidersroutineapplications,andapplicationsconcerningaccounts.Shouldaroutineapplicationrequireadecisiononamatterofprinciple,theapplicationisreferredtotheProbateListJudge.
TheProbateListJudgesitsonceaweektodealwithcomplexapplications.Ifanapplicationcanbedealtwithquickly,itisusuallyheardimmediately.Othersaresetdownforhearing,normallywithinamonth.
ContentiousmattersaremonitoredbyeitheraJudgeoraRegistrar.Contentiousmatterscommonlyincludedisputesastowhatwasatestator’slastvalidwill.Whenthesecasesarereadytoproceed,theyareplacedinthecalloverlisttoreceiveahearingdatebeforeanEquityJudge.
TheProbateListJudgemeetswiththeRegistrarsonaregularbasistodiscusstheefficientworkingoftheList.
• CommercialList(ListJudge:JusticeHammerschlag);
• CorporationsList(ListJudge:JusticeAustin,inconjunctionwithJusticeBarrettandJusticeWhite);
• ProbateList(ListJudge:JusticePalmer);• ProtectiveList(ListJudge:JusticePalmer);• RevenueList(ListJudge:JusticeGzell),and• TechnologyandConstructionList(ListJudge:
JusticeHammerschlag).
Admiralty ListTheAdmiraltyListdealswithmaritimeandshippingdisputes.ItisadministeredinthesamemannerastheCommercialList(seebelow).
Adoptions ListThisListdealswithapplicationsforadoptionordersanddeclarationsofthevalidityofforeignadoptionsundertheAdoptions Act 2000.Mostapplicationsareunopposed.Onceallsupportingaffidavitsarefiled,aJudgewilldealwiththeapplicationintheabsenceofthepublic,andwithouttheattendanceoftheapplicantsortheirlawyers.Unopposedapplicationsrequirecloseattentionforcompliancewithformalrequirements,butthereislittledelay.Asmallnumberofcontentioushearingstakeplaceincourtintheabsenceofthepublic.Mostoftheserelatetodispensingwithconsenttoadoption.TheRegistrarinEquitydealswithrequestsforinformationundertheAdoptions Act 2000.
Commercial ListTheCommercialListisconcernedwithcasesarisingoutoftransactionsintradeorcommerce.ThecaseflowmanagementstrategyappliedtotherunningofthisListaimstohavemattersbroughtonforhearingquicklyby:
• attendingtothetrueissuesatanearlystage;• ensuringwitnessstatementsareexchangedina
timelymanner;and• intensemonitoringofthepreparationofevery
case.
Thereisalsoadherencetotheallottedhearingdates,andhearingsarecontinuedtoconclusion,eventhoughtimeestimatesmaybeexceeded.
18
Firstinstancecriminaltrialswereconductedinthefollowingregionallocations:Albury,Armidale,Bathurst,BrokenHill,Dubbo,EastMaitland,Katoomba,Lismore,Newcastle,Orange,Parramatta,WaggaWaggaandWollongong.CriminaltrialswillcontinuetobeheldinvenuesoutsideSydneyasrequired.
Civilhearingswereheldatregionalvenuesbyspecialfixtureatthefollowinglocationsduringtheyear:Albury,CoffsHarbour,Orange,andWaggaWagga.
AllproceedingsaremanagedfromSydneyirrespectiveofwheretheproceedingswerecommencedorthevenueforhearing.
REGIONAL SIttINGS OF thE COURt
Protective ListTheworkofthisListinvolvesensuringthattheaffairsofpeopledeemedincapableoflookingaftertheirproperty,orthemselves,areproperlymanaged.TheListalsodealswithappealsfromtheGuardianshipTribunalofNSW,alongwithapplications(inchambers)bytheProtectiveCommissionerforadviceregardingtheadministrationofestates.TheCourtalsoconsidersapplicationsregardingmissingpersons’estatesand,incertaincircumstances,mayorderthattheirestatebemanagedundertheProtected Estates Act 1983.
Often,theissuesunderdisputeintheProtectiveListareofahighlysensitivenature.TheCourtacknowledgesthissituation,andhandlestheseproceedingswiththeminimumdegreeofformality.However,whenthereisadisputewhichcannotbesolvedinthisway,itisdecidedaccordingtolaw.
TheRegistrarsitsincourtonedayaweek.TheDeputyRegistrarmaysubmitacasetobedeterminedbytheJudgewithoutfurtherappearanceoradjournacaseintotheJudge’slist.AJudgesitsonceaweektodealwithanyreferredcases.MostcasesareconsideredontheJudge’susualsittingdayassoonasthepartiesareready.Longercases,however,arespeciallyfixed,usuallywithinonemonth.
TheProtectiveListJudgeconsultsregularlywiththeRegistrartodiscusstheefficientworkingoftheList.
Revenue ListTheRevenueListisalistdedicatedtothehearingoftaxationmatters.TheListwascreatedtoensurethatthesemattersareheardasefficientlyaspossible.MattersintheRevenueListareheardbyaspecificEquityDivisionJudgeeachmonth,andallocatedtheearliesthearingdatepossiblebeforethissameJudge.
technology and Construction ListCasesinvolvingcomplextechnologicalissuesanddisputesarisingoutofbuildingorengineeringcontractsareallocatedtothisList.TheListisadministeredbythesameJudgesandinthesamemannerasthoseintheCommercialList.
19
Evenwheremediationfailstoresolveamatterentirelyandthedisputeproceedstocourt,theimpactofmediationcanoftenbecomeapparentatthesubsequentcontestedhearing.Mediationoftenhelpstodefinetherealissuesoftheproceedingsandthismayresultinareductionineventualcourttimeand,consequently,lowerlegalcosts.
ArbitrationArbitrationinvolvesthehearingandadjudicationofadisputebyanarbitrator,ratherthanbyaJudgeorAssociateJudge.DeterminationthrougharbitrationofadisputeregardingrecoveryofdamagesispermittedunderPart5oftheCivil Procedure Act 2005.
TheChiefJusticeappointsexperiencedbarristersandsolicitorsasarbitratorsfollowinganominationbytheirrespectiveprofessionalassociations.
Incontrasttoamediator,anarbitratorimposesasolution(anaward)onthepartiesafterconsideringtheargumentsandevidencepresented.
AnawardofanarbitratorbecomesafinaljudgmentoftheCourt28daysaftertheawardhasbeengiven,providednopartytothearbitrationhasappliedwithinthattimeforarehearing.Ifapartyappliesforarehearing,thenthedisputeisreferredforcasemanagement,tobeheardafreshbeforeaJudge.
Alternativedisputeresolutionisabroadtermthatreferstothemeansbywhichpartiesseektoresolvetheirdispute,withtheassistanceofaneutralperson,butwithoutaconventionalcontestedhearingbeforeaJudgeorAssociateJudge.ThetwoalternativedisputeresolutionprocessesmostcommonlyconsideredforSupremeCourtproceedingsaremediationandarbitration.
MediationMediationisavailableformostcivilproceedingspursuanttoPart4ofthe Civil Procedure Act 2005.Mediationisnotavailableincriminalproceedings.
Theroleofthemediatoristoassistpartiesinresolvingtheirdisputebyalertingthemtopossiblesolutions,whileallowingthepartiestochoosewhichoptionisthemostagreeable.Themediatordoesnotimposeasolutionontheparties.EightqualifiedRegistrarsandDeputyRegistrarswereavailablethroughout2009toconductmediationsatspecifiedtimeseachweek.Alternatively,partiesmayuseprivatemediators.
Amattermayproceedtomediationattherequestoftheparties,ortheCourtmayreferappropriatecasestomediation,withorwithouttheconsentofparties.IftheCourtordersthatamatterbereferredtomediation,thereareseveralwaysinwhichamediatormaybeappointed.Ifthepartiesareinagreementastoaparticularmediator,thentheycanasktheCourttoappointthatmediator,whomayalsobeaRegistraroftheCourt.Ifpartiescannotagreeuponamediator,thentheyshouldattempttoagreeonhowtheCourtcanappointaqualifiedmediator.SomeoptionsaresetoutinPracticeNoteSCGen6.
SettlementofdisputesbymediationisencouragedintheCourtofAppeal,andintheCommonLawandEquityDivisions.Partiesmayderivethefollowingbenefitsfrommediation:
• anearlyresolutiontotheirdispute;• lowercosts;and• greaterflexibilityinresolvingthedisputeasthe
solutionsthatmaybeexploredthroughmediationarebroaderthanthoseopentotheCourt’sconsiderationinconventionallitigation.
ALtERNAtIVE dISPUtE RESOLUtION
20
4 COurt OPerAtiOnS
• Overview of operations by jurisdiction
• timeliness
– time Standards
– waiting times
• use of Alternative Dispute resolution
21
Figure4.1Court of Appeal achievements against time standards for pending caseload
90% 10
0%
87%
98%
90% 97
%
0%
100%
Up to 12 months old Up to 24 months old
National standard Achieved in 2008 Achieved in 2009
Court of Criminal AppealThenumberofnewcasescomingtotheCourtofCriminalAppealwaseightpercentlowerin2009thanin2008.Thisfollowsafourpercentdecreasein2008comparedto2007.
Thedisposalratewassixpercentlowerin2009thanin2008.Thisdegreeofreductionisexpected,astherehasbeenacontinueddecreaseinfilingsoverthelastfiveyears,whichreducesthevolumeofcasesavailableforhearinganddisposal.
Ofthecriminalappealsfinalisedduring2009,91percentrequiredasubstantivehearing.Thepercentageofcasesthatwerefinalisedbytheappellantabandoningtheproceedingsorwithdrawingtheappealwasninepercentin2009,comparedwithsixpercentin2008.
Thelistingdelayforcriminalappealsthatarereadyforhearingimprovedduring2009,reducingfromthreemonthsto2.5months.
AlthoughtheageprofileoftheCourtofCriminalAppeal’spendingcaseloaddeclinedduring2009,itstillremainsgoodrelativetothenationaltimestandards(seeFigure4.2).Comparedwiththepositionattheendof2008,thenumberofcasesolderthan12monthsincreasedfrom11to16,andthenumberofcasesolderthan24monthsincreasedfromthreetoeight.Oneofthoseeightcasesisparticularlycomplexandstillrequiresalargeamountofpreparationbeforeitcanbeconsideredreadyforhearing.
Court of Appeal
ThenumberofnewcasescomingtotheCourtofAppealwassixpercentlowerin2009than2008.Thisfollowsasixpercentdecreaselastyearwhencomparedto2007.
Thenetdisposalratewasthreepercentlowerin2009thanin2008.Settlementrateswerelowerthanlastyear.In2009,21percentoftheleaveapplicationdisposals,and30percentofthefinalisedappealsandapplicationsforrelief,wereachievedthroughsettlement.
Therewas,however,asignificantincreaseinthenumberofcasesfinalisedthroughaconcurrenthearing.Thisiswheretheleaveapplicationand,ifleaveisgranted,therelatedappeal,aredeterminedinasinglehearing.Ofthe151leaveapplicationsfinalisedbyhearingduring2009,97(64percent)werefinalisedbyconcurrenthearing,comparedwith60(43percent)during2008.
Amongthe368disposalsofsubstantiveappealsandapplicationsforreliefduring2008,256(70percent)werefinalisedbyjudgment;32ofthesewereextemporejudgments.
Thereducedfilingrateandtheincreaseduseofconcurrenthearingshavecontributedtothe12percentreductionintheoverallCourtofAppealcaseloadduring2009(from379to328).Thisfollowsasevenpercentreductioninthepreviousyear(from408).
TheageprofileoftheCourtofAppeal’spendingcaseloadhasalsoimproved.Ninetypercentofpendingcasesarelessthan12monthsold,whichmeanstheageofthependingcaseloadisnowconsistentwiththenationalstandard(seeFigure4.1).Comparedwiththepositionattheendof2008,thenumberofcasesolderthan12monthshasdecreasedfrom51to34.Whilethenumberofcasesolderthan24monthshasincreasedfromsixtonine,thereareexternalfactorsdelayingfinalisationinfiveofthoseninecases.
Thelistingdelayforsubstantiveappealsthatarereadyforhearinghasalsoimprovedgreatlyduring2009,from3.5monthsto1.5months.
OVERVIEW OF OPERAtIONS by JURISdICtION** to be read in conjunction with Appendix (ii)
22
timestandards(seeFigure4.3).However,whenevaluatingtheCourt’sperformanceagainstthenationaltimestandardsitisimportanttonotethatalmostallindictmentsinthisListareforoffencesofmurderormanslaughter,orotherwisehavethepotentialforalifesentencetobeimposed,whereastherangeofchargesroutinelybroughtincriminallistsofsupremecourtsinotherstatesandterritoriesisbroaderandincludeslessermaximumsentences.
Comparedwiththepositionattheendof2008,thenumberofpendingdefendantswithcasesolderthan12monthsdecreasedfrom17to16,andthosewithcasesolderthan24monthsincreasedfromfivetosix.Oneofthesixoldestpendingcaseswasdelayedbythecollapseoftheinitialtrial,withanewsix-weektrialrunsometimelater.Theremainingfivecaseswerefordefendantschargedwithterrorismoffences,whoweretriedinacomplexsingletrialinwhichthevoir-direandhearingtimeexceeded12months.ThefivedefendantsweresentencedinFebruary2010.ThisexceptionaltrialhasmaskedtheotherwisestrongpositionoftheCriminalList:excludingthesefivedefendants,therewasonlyoneotherpendingdefendantwithacaseolderthan24months.
Figure4.3Criminal List achievements against time standards for cases of pending defendants
Up to 12 months old Up to 24 months old
National standard Achieved in 2008 Achieved in 2009
90% 10
0%
81%
94%
81%
93%
0%
100%
ForcriminaltrialsconductedduringtheyearthehearingestimatesgiventotheCourtrangedfromonedayto52weeks,andaveragedaboutfiveweekspertrial.Thisrepresentsaconsiderabledemandforjudicialtime.TheCourtusesactingjudgestoincreaseitscapacitytohearcases,includingcriminaltrialwork.Withoutaccessto
Figure4.2Court of Criminal Appeal achievements against time standards for pending caseload
90% 10
0%
94% 99
%
91% 96
%0%
100%
Up to 12 months old Up to 24 months old
National standard Achieved in 2008 Achieved in 2009
Common Law division criminal casesDuring2009,106defendantsenteredtheCriminalList,comparedwith101during2008.AfterenteringtheList,thenextstepisusuallyarraignment.Mostdefendantsenterapleaof“notguilty”atarraignment,andthosecasesarethenlistedfortrial.
Atarraignmentsheldduring2009,105defendantswerelistedfortrial(startingineither2009or2010)and17defendantsenteredpleasof“guilty”andwerelistedforsentencehearings.During2009atotalof40guiltypleasweretaken:17atthetimeofarraignment,22afterbeinglistedfortrial(thisincludespleastakenatthestartoforduringthetrial)andoneatothersomeotherstage.
Thelistingdelayforcriminaltrialsthatrequireatleastthreeweeksofhearingtimehasincreasedslightlyduring2009(from2.5monthstothreemonths).ItisrareforSupremeCourtcriminaltrialdatestobetakenwhentheyarecloserinthan2.5months.Nearlyallofthetrialsareconductedwithajury.
During2009,112defendantswerefinalised,comparedwith122during2008.TheCourtpreparedandhandeddown80sentencesduringtheyear.
Attheendof2009therewere84defendantswithcasespendingintheCriminalList,asevenpercentreductionfromthepositionattheendof2008.
TheageprofileforpendingcasesinthisListattheendof2009issimilartothepositionattheendof2008,andtheresultsremainbelowthenational
23
Comparedwith2008,theDivision’scivilfilingratefellby14percent.Fordefendedcases,thedecreasewasthreepercent.Therewasa17percentdecreaseforuncontestedmatters.Contrarytotheoveralltrend,increaseswereseenforthecontestedcasesoftheGeneralCaseManagementListand,toalesserextent,thePossessionList.
Overall,thedisposalratewassixpercenthigherin2009thanin2008.Thisresultcanbeattributedtotheninepercentincreaseinthedisposalrateforuncontestedcases,whichoffsetthetwopercentreductioninthedisposalratefordefendedcases.
ThenumberofpendingcasesintheCommonLawDivisiondecreasedby21percentduring2009(seeFigure4.4).Thisisduetothelargereduction(35percent)inthenumberofuncontestedcasesonhand.MostoftheundefendedcasesarewithinthePossessionList.Fordefendedcases,however,thependingcaseloadincreasedbytwopercent.ThisgrowthhascomefromtheGeneralCaseManagementListandtheAdministrativeLawList.
Figure4.4Common Law division pending civil caseloads at 31 december
2007 2008 2009
1775
2611
4386
1832
2974
4806
1864
1942
3806
0
5000
Defended cases Uncontested cases Total
Bytheendof2009,defendedcasesmadeup49percentofthependingcivilcaseloadoftheCommonLawDivision,comparedwith38percentattheendof2008.Theproportionisswingingbacktowardthepositionseenin2004(whendefendedcaseswere60percentoftheDivision’scivilcaseload).ThesevariationshavebeenstronglyinfluencedbythetrendsinPossessionListfilings,whichincreasedrapidlyfrom2005,butdeclinedduring2009.
actingjudges,itwouldbeunlikelythattheCourtcouldmaintainanacceptableageprofilefortheCriminalListexceptbywithdrawingJudgesfromotherareasofwork.
During2009,trialsfor109defendantswerelistedtostart.Ofthese,trialsfor24defendantseithercollapsedorwereadjourned.Forthefourthconsecutiveyear,notrialwas“notreached”.Thereissomeover-listingofcriminaltrialsanditisahighprioritytoruneverytrial.TheCourtisawareofthefinancialimpactforthevariouspubliclyfundedagenciesinvolvedinthecriminaljusticesystem,andoftheemotionalandfinancialimpactforfamilyofthevictimandforwitnesses,whentrialsareunabletorun.
Thecaseloadandperformancestatisticsfortheyears2005andonwardsarenotdirectlycomparablewithstatisticsforpreviousyearsbecausetheCourtappliednewcountingrulesfrom1January2005.ThosechangestothecountingrulesareexplainedinAppendix(ii).
Common Law division civil cases Thecivilfirst-instanceworkoftheSupremeCourtcomesfromthecivillistsoftheCommonLawDivisionandfromtheEquityDivision(seenextsection).Thecivilcaseloadpositionreportedfor2009isthepositionthathadbeenreachedat17December(not31December),atwhichpointJusticeLink,thenewcasemanagementsystem,wasimplemented.
ThecivilworkoftheCommonLawDivisioncanbeseparatedintotwogroups:defendedcases(includingthespecialisedcase-managedlists)anduncontestedcases(suchasthoseproceedingtodefaultjudgmentandapplicationsdealtwithadministrativelybyRegistrarsandRegistryofficers).
ThefewcasesthathavepreviouslycometotheCourtunderitssummarycriminaljurisdictionhaveusuallybeenincorporatedintothecivilcaseloadstatistics.Anexceptionhasbeenmadeforagroupof248relatedsummaryjurisdictioncriminalcases(prosecutionsundertheFood Act 2003)thatwerefiledduring2007and2008,andfinalisedin2009.Thoseparticularcasesareexcludedfromthefollowinganalysisbecauseoftheirdisproportionateeffectonthestatistics.
24
TherateoffilingintheEquityDivisiondecreasedby11percentin2009,followingafourpercentincreasein2008.Numerically,thelargestdecreasewasintheCorporationsList(inwhichabout90percentofcasesaredealtwithbyaRegistraronly),followedbytheGeneralList.TherewasalsoasignificantreductioninfilingsintheCommercialList,whiletheTechnologyandConstructionListfilingswereatasimilarleveltothosein2008.
Thereporteddisposalrateoverallwasninepercentlowerin2009thanin2008.ThedecreasewaslargelywithintheGeneralList(whichalsoexperiencedasignificantreductioninfilings).ThetwolargestlistsoftheEquityDivisionaretheCorporationsListandtheGeneralList,andthefiguresfordisposalsinthosetwolistsneedtobeinterpretedwithcare.Thoselistscannotbemonitoredsufficientlytosegregatecasesthathavebeenre-openedafterfinalisationofthesubstantiveissues.Consequently,asignificantnumberofcasesmayhavemorethanonedisposalrecordedagainstthem.ThesecountingproblemsareexpectedtodiminishnextyearwhentheJusticeLinksystemisabletoprovidecaseloaddataforcivilcases.Meanwhile,sometrendscanbeinferredfromanysignificantpatternsofchangeovertime.
MostcasesintheCorporationsListareapplicationsthatcanbehandledfullybyaRegistrar.Additionally10to15percentofcasesintheGeneralListarefinalisedbyaRegistrar.Registrars’disposalsmadeup44percentoftheoveralldisposalswithinEquityDivisionthisyear.
ThenumberofpendingcasesintheDivisiondecreasedbyninepercentduring2009(seeFigure4.6).Principally,thisoccurredwithintheCorporationsList(a20percentreduction)andtheGeneralList(aninepercentreduction).Figure4.6Equity division pending civil caseloads at 31 december
2007 2008 2009
2431
631
543
3605
2037
858
577
3472
1856
686
611
3153
0
4000
General List CorporationsList
Otherspecialised lists
Total
Atthecloseof2009,thelistingdelayforCommonLawDivisioncivilcasesthatrequireuptofivedaysofhearingtimewasthreemonths.
Duringtheyeartherewere737matterslistedforhearing(seeFigure4.5),ofwhich62percentproceededtohearingand25percentsettledafterbeinglistedforhearing.Sothatavailablejudicialtimeisusedoptimally,theCommonLawDivision’scivilhearingsareover-listed.Thiscarriesariskthatsomecasesmaybe“notreached”.In2009,onlyonecase(lessthanonepercentoflistedcases)was“notreached”,whichwasthesameresultasfor2008.Thisisanotableachievement.In2007therewerefourcases(onepercentoflistings)notreached,andin2006therewere41(eightpercent).
Themedianfinalisationtimeshaveimprovedformostofthedefendedlists,inparticularforthetwolargestlists,theGeneralCaseManagementListandtheProfessionalNegligenceList.Forcasesproceedingbydefault,medianfinalisationtimehasremainedmoreorlesssteady(ataroundsixmonths)forthelastthreeyears.Medianfinalisationtimedescribestheageatfinalisationforcasesdisposedduringtheyear.Itdoesnotpredictdisposaltimesforpendingorfuturecases.
Figure4.5Listings for hearing – common law civil hearings
2007 2008 2009
760
737
873
0
900
2007 2008 2009
Equity divisionThefollowinganalysiscoversallcasesfiledwithintheEquityDivisionotherthantheuncontestedprobatematters(whicharecoveredinthefinalparagraphofthissection).FormostlistsinthisDivision,the2009thecaseloadpositionisreportedasat17December(not31December),atwhichpointJusticeLink,thenewcasemanagementsystem,wasimplemented.
25
tIMELINESS
time standardsForitsappellatecourtsandfortheCriminalList,theCourt’sperformanceindealingwithcasesinatimelywayisreportedintermsoftheageofthependingcaseload.MeasurementoftheagedistributionwithinapendingcaseloadhelpstheCourttoassessovertimethesuccessofdelayreductionstrategiesandtoidentifyareaswherefurthercase-managementwouldbebeneficial.
Appendix(ii)showsthepositionreachedat31Decemberofthereportingyearincomparisonwiththenationalstandards.
Othercourtsandorganisationsmayusedifferentmethodstomeasuretheageofcasesorreporttimelinessofcasehandling,andthiscanproducestatisticsthatarenotnecessarilycomparable.Tocitecriminalcasesasanexample,theDistrictCourtofNewSouthWalesreportsperformanceintermsofthetimebetweencommittalandthecommencementoftrial,whiletheAustralianBureauofStatisticsproducesnationalstatisticsthatreportperformanceintermsofthetimefromcommittaltoacquittalorsentencing.
TheCourt’stimelinessreportingforcriminalmatters(includingcriminalappeals)alignswiththemethodsusedbytheProductivityCommissioninitsannualReport on Government Services.TimelinessreportingfortheCourtofAppealisalsoalignedwiththemethodsusedbytheProductivityCommission,butisconfinedtothosecaseslodgedintheCourtofAppeal(whereastheProductivityCommission’sfigurescoverallcivilcasesthatareappellateinnature,notjustthoselodgedintheCourtofAppeal).
TheCourthasdeterminedthatitwillreportontheagedistributionwithinitscivillistsoncetheJusticeLinksystemisabletoprovidepreciseandtimelystatisticsontheageofthosecases(approximately7,000casesasattheendof2009,excludingnon-contentiousprobateapplications).Theprevioussystem(Courtnet)wasunabletoprovidestatisticsofsufficientdetailandaccuracyforpendingcivilcaseswithintheCommonLawandEquityDivisions.AnindicationoftheageofpendingcivilcasesisprovidedannuallyforProductivityCommission’sReport on Government Services.In
Atthecloseof2009,thelistingdelayforGeneralListandProbateListcasesthatrequireuptotwodaysofhearingtimehadimprovedgreatly(fromfivemonthsto2.5months).
During2009therewere446matterslistedforhearing,excludingmattersbeforetheDutyJudge,casesreferredtoaCorporationsJudge,AdoptionsListmattersandProtectivelistmatters(seeFigure4.7).Ofthose446listings,70percentproceededtohearingand30percentsettled.UnliketheCommonLawDivision,theEquityDivisiondoesnotroutinelyover-listthecasesforhearing,sothereareno“notreached”cases.
ThemediancasefinalisationtimesformostEquityDivisionListsregressedslightlyduring2009,butcontinuedtobewellunder12months.Medianfinalisationtimedescribestheageatfinalisationforcasesdisposedduringtheyear;itdoesnotpredictdisposaltimesforpendingorfuturecases.
UncontestedapplicationsrelatingtoprobatemattersarefinalisedbyRegistrars.Atotalof22,985applicationswerefiledduring2009.Theprocessingtimeforapplicationsforagrantofprobate,lettersofadministrationorare-seal(ofaprobategrant),wheretheinitialapplicationsmetallproceduralrequirements,increasedtoseveralweeksattimesduring2009.Increasedresourceswereallocatedtobringthedelaybacktonormallevels.Theprocessingtimeconsequentlyimprovedtowardtheendoftheyearandshouldreturntonormallevelsin2010.
Figure4.7Listings for hearing – Equity division
2007 2008 2009
432 46
8
446
0
500
2007 2008 2009
26
Listing delaysThelistingdelaysindicatehowquicklytheCourtisprovidinghearingsforvarioustypesofcasesoncetheyareassessedasreadyforhearing,providingthepartiesarewillingtoselectfromthefirstavailablegroupofhearingdatesofferedbytheCourt.
Thetableinappendix(ii)showsthelistingdelaythatwillapplyatthestartofthenewlawtermfollowingthecloseofthereportingyear.Thelistingdelaysrefertohearing-timerequirementsthatareconsideredrepresentativeortypicalofthevariousareasoftheCourt.Thevariouslistingdelayscanchangeduringtheyear,andupdatedinformationispublisheddailyinthecourtlist.
Bythecloseof2009,thelistingdelaysacrossallthenominatedareasoftheCourt’sworkwerethreemonthsorless.ListingdelaysimprovedstronglyintheCourtofAppealandtheEquityDivision,andtherewasaslightimprovementintheCourtofCriminalAppeal.TherewereslightincreasesinthelistingdelayforthecivilandcriminalcasesoftheCommonLawDivision.
Incontrasttothemeasurementsofageofpendingcasesandcasefinalisationtimes,themeasurementoflistingdelayslargelyeliminatestheimpactoffactorsoutsidethecontrolofthecourt.Suchfactorscaninclude,forexample,delaysinservingcourtdocuments,delayscausedbytheneedtojoinadditionalpartiestoproceedings,timetakenupwithinterlocutoryissues,timeneededforpartiestopreparetheirevidence,timethatelapseswhilepartiesattemptmediationortakepointsonappeal,anddelaysthatariseifapartyneedsatrialdatethatislaterthanthefirstavailable.
theabsenceofcomputerisedreporting,eachyeartheRegistrystaffundertakeatime-consuminganalysis,applyingtheCommission’scountingrules,toestimatetheageprofile(asat30June)fortheCourt’scivilnon-appealcasesasasinglegroup.
Waiting timesFortheareasoftheCourtwherereportingsystemsareunabletoprovideinformationneededtoaccuratelyreporttheageofthependingcaseload,waitingtimeinformationisshowninstead.
ThewaitingtimesshowninAppendix(ii)representcasefinalisationtimes,usingmediantimes,usualtimesortimerangesthatwererecordedduringthereportingyear.
Whenlookingatthechangesincasefinalisationtimesovertheyearsitisimportanttounderstandthatcasefinalisationtimescanappeartoworsen(lengthen)inyearswhenanunusuallylargenumberofoldercasesarefinalised.Yearswithcomparativelyhighcasefinalisationtimesareoftenyearswhenbacklogsofoldcaseshavebeenaddressed.
Casefinalisationtimesshouldnotbeusedtopredictthefinalisationtimeofcurrentorfuturecases.Thisisnotonlybecausecasefinalisationresultsdependonwhetheroldercasesformanunusuallyhighproportionoftheyear’sfinalisedcases(asexplainedabove),butalsobecausecasefinalisationtimeincludesthetimethatpartiestaketopreparethecasetothepointwhereitisreadytobeheardsubstantively.Thetimerequiredtoprepareacaseforhearingwillvarysignificantlyfromcasetocase,accordingtothecomplexityofissues,thesituationofthepartiesinvolvedandotherfactors.
27
USE OF ALtERNAtIVE dISPUtE RESOLUtION
settlementsarenotrecordedassettlements“atmediation”eventhoughthemediationproceduremayhavehelpedthepartiestoeventuallyreachthatsettlement.Therearenostatisticsonsettlementratesforcasesreferredtoprivatemediators.
Thelistingdelayforcourt-annexedmediationsessionsrangedbetweenoneandsixweeksduringmostoftheyear.Thelistingdelaycanchangeduringtheyear,andupdatedinformationispublisheddailyinthecourtlist.
Nocaseswerelistedforarbitrationduring2009.Theuseofarbitrationhasdeclined,primarilybecausetheDistrictCourt’sjurisdictionhasexpandedtoincludemostoftheworkthathadtypicallybeenarbitratedintheSupremeCourt.Duringthepastfiveyears,theCourthasreferredonlyonecasetoarbitration.
MediationisthemostpopularformofalternativedisputeresolutionforSupremeCourtproceedings.During2009,theRegistryrecorded1,111referralstomediation,ofwhichapproximately60percentwerereferralstocourt-annexedmediationconductedbytheCourt’sRegistrars.
Litigantsinanycontestedcivilcase(includingappeals)canconsiderusingmediation.During2009approximately4,650civilcaseswerefiledforwhichmediationmightbepossible.Mediationisinapplicabletotheothercivilcasesthatwerecommenced(largelycaseswherenodefendantconteststheclaim,routineprobateapplications,applicationsforadoptionofchildren,applicationstowindupcompanies,applicationsforrecoveryofproceedsofcrimeandapplicationsthatrequireadministrativeprocessingonly).
During2009,therateofreferringcasestomediationwas24percentofthefilingrateforcasesinwhichmediationmightbeapplicable.Thisrepresentsstronggrowthinuseofmediationoverthelastfouryears(in2005,themediationreferralratewasonlyninepercentofthefilingrateforapplicablecases).
Withinthecourt-annexedmediationprogram,thenumberandpercentageofcasessettlingatmediationdecreasedfrom59percentlastyearto49percentin2009.Althoughasignificantdecrease,itiswithintherangeofresultsseenoverthelastfewyears.Casesareconsideredtohavesettledatmediationifthepartieshaveagreedtofinalisingordersbythecloseofthemediationprocedureorhavedraftedheadsofagreement.Ifpartiesagreetosettletheirdisputeatanytimeafterthecloseofthemediationsession,those
28
5 eDuCAtiOn AnD PuBLiC infOrmAtiOn
• Judicial officer education
• Public education programme
• the role of the Public information Officer
29
Bergin,HoebenandBreretonparticipatedinapaneldiscussingCurrent (or is that Concurrent?) Trends in Expert Evidence and Expert Determination. Therewerealsoseveralguestpresentersattheconference.TheChiefJusticeofAustralia,theHonourableRobertFrench,spokeaboutInternational Conventions and Australian Domestic Law;ProfessorPrueVinesfromtheFacultyofLawattheUniversityofNSWspokeaboutGovernment Liability in Tort — Public Authorities;MajorGeneral(Retired)JimMolandeliveredasessionaboutRunning the War in Iraq;andProfessorFredWatson,AstronomerinChargeattheAnglo-AustralianTelescope,presentedasessiononAstronomers Behaving Badly.
• InAugustsixjudgesattendedtheAnnualSupremeCourtConferenceonCorporateLaworganisedbytheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,theLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesandtheRossParsonsCentreofCommercial,CorporateandTaxationLawattheUniversityofSydney.EachofthefivesessionswaschairedbyajudgeoftheCourt.TheConferencewassubstantiallyorganisedbyJusticeRobertAustinwhopreparedadetailedbackgroundpaperfortheConferenceandeditedthepublicationofthepapersdeliveredwhichwere:ProfessorIanRamsay“IntheBestInterestsoftheCompany(includingcreditors)”;IanJackmanSC“RecentDevelopmentsinLiabilityforInsolventTrading”;NeilYoungQC“Directors’DutyofCareandDiligence”;ProfessorJenniferHill“NewTrendsintheRegulationofExecutiveCompensation”andAlanCameron“HowDoDirectorsSleepatNight?”.
• InOctober,10judgesattendedatwilightseminar“TheMentalHealthLegislationAmendment(ForensicProvisions)Act”givenbytheHonourableGregJamesQC.
• InDecember,12judgesattendedatwilightseminargivenbyTheHonourableJusticeMcClellanandTheHonourableJusticeHoebenAMRFDon“ConcurrentEvidenceintheSupremeCourt”.
Manyjudicialofficersupdatedanddevelopedtheirskillsandknowledgeduringtheyearbyattendingconferences,seminarsandworkshops.SomeoftheprogrammesaretailoredspecificallytotheCourt’sneeds,whileotherstargettheinternationallegalcommunity.Anoverviewofsomeoftheeducationalactivitiescompletedduring2009appearsbelow.Foramorecomprehensivelistofactivities,pleaserefertoAppendix(iv)“OtherJudicialActivity”.
domestic activities • InJanuary,14judgesattendedtheannual
SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’ConferenceinHobart.SomeofthetopicscoveredduringthreedayConferenceprogrammeincludedcomplexcivillitigation,theimpactofmigrationlawonadministrativelaw,andpolicyandethicalissuesinlitigationfunding.
• InFebruary,nineSupremeCourtjudgesattendedacross-jurisdictionaltwilightseminar“RecentAmendmentstotheEvidenceAct”givenintheBancoCourtbyMrStephenOdgersSC.
• InMay,12judgesattendedanadvancedonlineresearchskillsworkshopheldatthecourt.
• InAugust,theannualSupremeCourtJudges’ConferencewasheldattheMercureHunterValleyGardensinPokolbin.Forty-onejudges,threeassociatejudgesandoneactingjudgeattendedthethree-dayconference.Thisyear’skeynotespeakerwasLordNeubergerofAbbotsbury.Inhiskeynoteaddress,entitledProprietary Estoppel in Domestic and Commercial Contexts, LordNeubergerexaminedthedevelopmentofthedoctrineofproprietoryestoppel(orequitableestoppelasitisknowninAustralia)andconsideredanumberofcasesthathavebeenthesubjectofmuchextra-judicialcommentandinterestbyreasonoftheirdifferingapproach.SeveraloftheCourt’sjudgespresentedsessionsattheConference.ActingJusticeHandleyprovidedacommentaryonLordNeuberger’spaper;JusticeHowiespokeaboutDevelopments in Criminal Trials;JusticeReinpresentedapaperentitledOutside the Construction Zone: Three Aspects of Practical Importance in Insurance Litigation;andJusticesAllsopandMcCallumprovidedashortpresentationabouttheExchanging Ideas Conference.Inaddition,JusticesMcClellan,
JUdICIAL OFFICER EdUCAtION
30
PUbLIC EdUCAtION PROGRAMME
EachweektheCourt’sRegistrarsaddresssecondaryschoolstudentsandcommunitygroupsregardingtheCourt’sjurisdictionanddailyoperations.Afterthelecture,thegroupistakentoanappropriatecourtroomtoobserveaSupremeCourttrial.Demandforthesegrouptalksremainshigh,particularlyamongstsecondaryschoolLegalStudiesstudents.Morethan1,000studentsandmembersofthepublicattendedtheselecturesin2009.
InNovember,theCourtalsoparticipatedinSydneyOpenDay,abiennialeventorganisedbytheHistoricHousesTrust.TheKingStreetCourtComplexwasopeneduptovisitorswithover500peopleattendingguidedarchitecturaltoursofthebuilding.
Otherdomesticeducationalactivitiesjudgesundertookduringtheyearincluded:
• JudgmentWritingWorkshop:Fivejudgesattendedacross-jurisdictionaljudgmentwritingworkshop.Theseinteractiveworkshopshelpjudicialofficersdevelopandrefinetheabilitytowriteclear,concise,well-structuredjudgments.TwentyeightSupremeCourtjudgeshavenowattendedoneoftheseworkshops.
• OrientationProgram:FourjudgesfromtheSupremeCourtattendedoneofthetwofive-dayresidentialNationalJudicialOrientationPrograms,whichassistnewlyappointedjudicialofficerswiththeirtransitiontojudicialofficebyfacilitatingthedevelopmentandrefinementoftheskillsandknowledgenecessaryforeffectivejudging.ItisconductedbytheNationalJudicialCollegeofAustraliawiththeassistanceoftheJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWalesandtheAustralianInstituteofJudicialAdministration.
• AboriginalAwarenessProgram:SupremeCourtjudgeswereenthusiasticparticipantsintheJudicialCommission’sNgaraYuraProgramwhichaimstoincreaseawarenessamongjudicialofficersaboutcontemporaryAboriginalsociety,customsandtraditions,andtheireffectonAboriginalpeopleinthejusticesystem.The“ExchangingIdeas”ConferencebroughttogetherjudicialofficersfromalllevelsofthecourtsandAboriginalcommunitymembersfromacrossNSWtodiscussadiverserangeofmattersrelatingtoAboriginalcultural,socialandlegalissues.ItprovidedauniqueopportunityforadiscussionofthewaysjudicialofficersmaycontributetothejusttreatmentofAboriginalpeopleinthecourtsystem.FourSupremeCourtjudgeswereinvolved.
• 360DegreeFeedbackProgram:Thisyear,twojudgesparticipatedinthe360degreefeedbackprogramconductedforacross-jurisdictionalgroupofjudgesandmagistrates.Theprogramisdesignedtoprovidejudicialofficerswithcandid,constructivefeedbackontheirperformance,andassistintheirpersonalandprofessionaldevelopment
• BenchBookDevelopment:TheCourtcontinuedtoworkwiththeJudicialCommissiontoensuretheCriminalTrialsCourtsBenchBookandtheCivilTrialsBenchBookwereregularlyupdatedbyjudgestoreflectdevelopmentsinthelawandsentencingpractice.
31
thE ROLE OF thE PUbLIC INFORMAtION OFFICER
TheCourt’sPublicInformationOfficer(PIO)istheprincipalmediaspokespersonforthesuperiorNSWcourtsandprovidesaprofessionalcourt-medialiaisonservice.
ThemajorroleofthepositionistoprovidethemediawithinformationaboutcourtproceedingsintheNSWSupremeCourt,theLandandEnvironmentCourt,theIndustrialRelationsCommissionofNSWandtheDistrictCourtofNSW.
ThePIOworkswiththemediatoensurethatjudicialdecisionsarecorrectlyinterpretedandreportedtothecommunity,andthatinitiativestakenbythecourtstoenhanceaccesstojusticearewidelypromoted.
ThePIOisalsoresponsibleforensuringthatmediaoutletsarealerttoanysuppressionordersissuedinproceedings,andthattheyarefamiliarwiththetermsandimpactsoftheseorders.
Thedistributionof,andadherenceto,suppressionornon-publicationordersiscriticalasthemedia’sfailuretoacknowledgethemintheircoveragecouldcompromiseproceedings.
During2009,thePIOhandled3,327enquiriesfromthemedia.Ofthese:
• 76.2percent(2,467enquiries)relatedtoSupremeCourtmatters;
• 18percent(582enquiries)relatedtoDistrictCourtmatters,and
• 5.8percent(278enquiries)relatedtoothercourts,includingtheIndustrialRelationsCommissionandtheLandandEnvironmentCourt.
Ofthe3,327mediaenquiriesreceived:64.3percentwerefromSydneymetropolitanjournalists/reporters(majornewspapers,radioandTVstations);18.9percentwerefromNSWregionalnewspapers,radioandTVstations,2.9percentwerefromsuburbanSydneynewspapers,and1.4percentwerefrominterstatejournalists.Theremaining12.5percentoftheenquirieswerefromwritersforspecialist/tradepublicationsormembersofthepublic.
32
6 OtHer ASPeCtS Of tHe COurt’S wOrk
• uniform Civil Procedure rules
• JusticeLink
• Law Courts Library
• Admission to the Legal Profession and appointment of Public notaries
• Admission under the mutual recognition Acts
• Administration of the Costs Assessment Scheme
• Pro Bono scheme
• Judicial Assistance Program
33
TheLawCourtsLibraryisalegalresourceandinformationcentreforalljudicialofficers,chamberstaffandRegistrarsintheLawCourtsBuilding.
TheNSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneralandtheFederalCourtofAustraliajointlyfundtheLawCourtsLibrary.TwocommitteesoverseetheoperationsoftheLibrary:theOperationsCommitteeandtheAdvisoryCommittee.
TheOperationsCommitteecomprisesanequalnumberofrepresentativesfromtheNSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneralandtheFederalCourtofAustralia.TheOperationsCommitteeisresponsibleforsettingbudgetpriorities,revenue,businessplanningandLibrarypolicy.TheAdvisoryCommitteeconsistsofthreeJudgesfromtheFederalCourtofAustraliaandthreeJudgesfromtheSupremeCourtofNSW.TheAdvisoryCommitteeconsultswiththeOperationsCommitteeonmattersofbudget,collectiondevelopmentandserviceprovision.
During2009,theSupremeCourtrepresentativesontheAdvisoryCommitteewere:
TheHonourableJusticeAllsop;
TheHonourableJusticeBasten,and
TheHonourableJusticeAustin.
LAW COURtS LIbRARy
TheUniformCivilProcedureRulesprojectcommencedin2003whentheAttorneyGeneral’sDepartmentdevelopedacross-jurisdictionalWorkingParty.TheWorkingParty’schiefaimwastoconsolidateprovisionsaboutcivilprocedureintoasingleActanddevelopacommonsetofrulesforcivilprocessesintheSupreme,DistrictandLocalCourts.
Thisaimwassubstantiallyachievedthroughthecommencementin2005oftheCivil Procedure Act 2005 andUniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.AUniformRulesCommitteewasestablishedundersections8,17andSchedule2oftheAct.TheCommitteeischairedbytheChiefJustice.ThePresidentoftheCourtofAppeal,JusticeHoeben,andJusticeReinalsorepresenttheCourtontheCommittee.
JUStICELINk
TheCourtcontinuedtobeactivelyinvolvedintheNSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral’sJusticeLinkprojectduringtheyear,particularlythroughtheJusticeLinkSteeringCommittee.
TheCommitteeisaninitiativeoftheDepartmentandincludesrepresentativesfromtheSupreme,DistrictandLocalCourts.ItaimstoensuretheJusticeLinksystemmeetstheneedsofcourtsandotherjusticeagenciesintheDepartment.ThefollowingSupremeCourtjudicialofficersandregistrystaffservedontheCommitteein2009:
• TheHonourableJusticeHowie;• TheHonourableJusticeGzell;• TheHonourableJusticeLatham;• TheHonourableJusticeRein• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeMacready,and• MsMeganGreenwood,ChiefExecutiveOfficer
andPrincipalRegistrar.
UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEdURE RULES
34
ProfessorSColbranProfessorJMcKeoughMsMTangney(NSWAttorneyGeneral’s
Department)ExecutiveOfficerandSecretary:MsRSzabo.
the board’s work during 2009• SincetheUniformPrincipleswereintroduced
inApril2008,theBoardhascontinuedtoworkwiththeLawAdmissionsConsultativeCommittee(LACC)andotherAustralianadmittingauthoritiestoapplythePrincipleswhenassessingoverseasqualifications.RecommendationsforamendmentsmadebytheBoardhavebeenadoptedbyLACC.InanefforttoassistapplicantsintheirunderstandingofthePrinciples,theBoardpublishedapaper‘PoliciesforOverseasApplicantsforAdmission’onitswebsite.
• AftermuchdiscussionaboutthePrinciplesandtheirimpactoneminentoverseaspractitioners,inparticular,thosefromtheUK,theBoardmadeitknownthatitwouldretainanunfettereddiscretiontograntexemptionsundersection24(4)oftheLegal Profession Act 2004.Inordertofacilitatereformanduniformity,documentationrelatingtoallexemptionsgrantedbytheBoardwascirculatedtoLACC,AdmittingAuthoritiesandtheNationalLegalProfessionTaskforce.
Table6.1:Summary and comparison of the Legal Profession Admission board’s workload
2007 2008 2009
LawyeradmissionsapprovedbytheBoard
1,985 2,005 1,839
CertificatesofCurrentAdmissionproducedbytheBoard
452 427 324
PublicNotariesappointedbytheBoard
58 58 66
Students-at-Lawregistrations 600 548 610
(Note:admissionsunderMutualRecognitionActsarenotincluded.PleaserefertothesectionbelowentitledAdmission Under Mutual Recognition Acts)
TheLegalProfessionAdmissionBoardisaself-fundingstatutorybodyestablishedundertheLegal Profession Act 2004.TheBoardmakesandappliesrulesgoverningtheadmissionoflawyersandappointmentofpublicnotariesinNewSouthWales.Italsoassessesthequalificationsofoverseasapplicantsandaccreditsacademiclawdegreesandpracticallegaltrainingcourses.SuccessfulcompletionoftheBoard’sexaminationsleadstotheawardofaDiplomainLawthat,forthepurposeofadmissionasalawyerinNewSouthWales,istheequivalentofadegreefromanaccreditedlawschool.Onceadmittedasalawyer,apersonmayapplytotheLawSocietyofNSWortheNSWBarAssociationforapractisingcertificateaseitherasolicitororbarrister.
TheBoardcomprisestheChiefJustice,threeotherJudgesoftheSupremeCourt,anomineeoftheAttorneyGeneralandkeymembersofthelegalprofession.TheBoardmaintainsacloseworkingrelationshipwiththeCourtinotherrespects,byprovidingofficerstoassistintheadministrationofadmissionceremonies,maintainingtheRollsofLawyersandPublicNotaries,andliaisingwiththeCourt’sRegistryaboutapplicationsmadeundertheMutualRecognitionActs.Inaddition,fiveJudgesoftheCourtprovideimportantpolicyinputbymaintainingpositionsontheBoard’scommitteesandtheLawAdmissionsConsultativeCommittee(LACC).
During2009,themembersoftheLegalProfessionAdmissionBoardwere:
TheHonourabletheChiefJusticeTheHonourableJusticeTobiasAMRFD(Presiding
Member)TheHonourableMrJusticeGrove(DeputyPresiding
Member;until23June)TheHonourableJusticeCampbellTheHonourableJusticeSlattery(DeputyPresiding
Memberfrom24June)MrJGormlySCMrGMcGrathMrCCawleyMrJDobson
AdMISSION tO thE LEGAL PROFESSION ANd APPOINtMENt OF PUbLIC NOtARIES
35
Work during 2009• TheCommitteeanditssub-committees
continuedtoapplytheUniformPrinciplestoapplicationsforoverseasassessmentandworkedcloselywiththeBoardinresolvingissuesthataroseasaresultoftheirimplementation.InadditiontoreviewingandmakingrecommendationstotheBoardonchangesproposedbytheLawAdmissionsConsultativeCommittee(LACC)ithassuggestedchangesthathaveultimatelybeenadoptedbyLACC.
• TheCommitteeconsideredarecordnumberofapplicationsforreview(87),comparedto70in2008and33in2007–adirectresultoftheintroductionofthePrinciples.TheCommitteealsoconsidered25applicationsforextensionsoftimeforacademicorPLTexemptions,19ofwhichwereapprovedand11requestsfromstudentstocreditsubjectsundertakenatotherinstitutions,9ofwhichwereapproved.
Table6.2:Applications considered by the Legal Qualifications Committee
2007 2008 2009
ApplicationsforAcademicExemptions
509 616 443
ApplicationsforPracticalTrainingExemptions
207 195 103
Examinations CommitteeTheExaminationsCommitteeisconstitutedbytheLegalProfessionAdmissionRulestooverseethecontentandconductoftheBoard’sexaminationsandthecandidaturesofStudents-at-Law.Ithasthreesub-committees.ThePerformanceReviewSub-CommitteedeterminesapplicationsfromstudentsseekingtoavoidorovercomeexclusionfromtheBoard’sexaminations.TheCurriculumSub-Committee,inconsultationwiththeBoard’sexaminersandrevisingexaminers,plansthecurriculumfortheBoard’sexaminations,andtheQualitySub-Committeeoverseesthequalityofexaminationsandmarking.
Legal Qualifications CommitteeTheLegalQualificationsCommitteeisconstitutedundertheLegalProfessionAdmissionRulestosuperintendthequalificationofcandidatesforadmissionandtoadvisetheBoardinrelationtotheaccreditationofacademicandpracticaltrainingcoursesinNewSouthWales.TheCommitteeperformsitsworklargelythroughitssub-committeesandreviewsdecisionsofthesesub-committeesattherequestofaggrievedapplicants.Inadditiontoappealsfromsub-committeedecisionsandrequestsforextensionsoftheperiodsofvalidityofacademicandpracticaltrainingexemptions,itconsidersapplicationsfromstudents-at-lawwhoseekapprovalunderrule97(9)toapplyforexemptionsonthebasisofstudiesundertakenatotherinstitutionsafterregistrationasastudent-at-lawwiththeBoard.
During2009themembersoftheLegalQualificationsCommitteewere:
TheHonourableJusticeWhite(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeCampbell(Deputy
Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeHarrisonMrJFernonSCMsSLeisMsEPickerMrHMackenMrCCawleyMrJDobsonMrGRossMrRHarrisMrPUnderwoodProfessorALambAMDrGElkingtonExecutiveOfficerandSecretary:MsRSzabo
36
AdMISSION UNdER thE MUtUAL RECOGNItION ACtS
ThemanagementofapplicationsfromlegalpractitionersforadmissionundertheMutualRecognitionActsformsanotheraspectoftheRegistry’swork.TheRegistryliaiseswiththeLegalProfessionAdmissionBoardinperformingthistask.In2009,38NewZealandpractitionerswereenrolledundertheTransTasmanMutualRecognitionAct1997.NopersonwasadmittedundertheMutualRecognitionAct1992.Forcomparisonpurposes,in2008,therewere64Trans-Tasmanadmissionsandnilinterstateenrolments,whilefor2007,therespectivetotalswere70and3.ThenumberofpractitionersenrolledundertheMutualRecognitionAct1992isnegligible,ifnotnonexistentaseachStateandTerritory,exceptSouthAustralia,hasenactedlegislationthatallowsinterstatepractitionerstopractiseseamlesslythroughoutAustralia.
During2009,themembersoftheExaminationsCommitteewere:
TheHonourableJusticeSimpson(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeHall(DeputyChairperson)MrMChristieSCMrJDobsonMrFAstillMsSCarterMrRAndersonExecutiveOfficerandSecretary:MsRSzabo
Work during 2009• TheCommitteeapprovedanewFamilyLaw
syllabus,whichtakesintoaccountrecentchanges,particularlythelessadversarialtrial(LAT)processinparentingandfamilyservices.
• ItendorsedandreferredtotheBoardforapproval,proposalsthatassignmentscontributetowardsthefinalexaminationmarkandtheintroductionofanewoptionalcoursetotheBoard’sDiplomainLawcurriculumentitledUnderstanding Legal Language and Legislation.
• AmendmentsandimprovementscontinuedtobemadetothedocumentsettingoutrequirementsofExaminersandRevisingExaminersintheconductoftheBoard’sexamsandtheCommitteecontinuedtocloselymonitoreachsemester’sexaminationperformancestatistics
Table6.3:three-year comparison of the Examinations Committee’s workload
2007 2008 2009
ExaminationsubjectenrolmentsbyStudents-at-Law
5,042 4,847 4,804
Approvedapplicationstositexaminationsinnon-scheduledvenues
46 39 45
Approvedapplicationsforspecialexaminationconditions
37 34 41
Student-at-lawcourseapplications 310 236 248Applicationsfromstudents-at-lawliableforexclusionfromtheBoard’sexaminations
361 335 315
37
TheProBonoSchemewasestablishedunderPart66AoftheSupreme Court Rules 1970in2001withsupportfromtheNSWBarAssociationandtheLawSocietyofNSW.Theschemeenablesunrepresentedlitigantstobereferredtoabarristerand/orsolicitoroncetheCourtdeterminestheyaredeservingofassistance.Overthecourseoftheyear,theCourtmade35referralsundertheScheme:onereferralwasmadeinaCourtofAppealmatter,17referralsweremadebyjudgesineachoftheCommonLawandEquityDivisions.TheScheme’ssuccessdependsuponthecontinuedgoodwillofbarristersandsolicitors,andtheCourtgratefullyacknowledgesthosewhosupporttheSchemebyvolunteeringtheirservices.
JUdICIAL ASSIStANCE PROGRAM
AJudicialAssistanceProgramwaslaunchedtohelpNewSouthWalesjudicialofficersmeetthedemandsoftheirworkwhilstmaintaininggoodhealthandwell-being.Theschemeprovidesfor24-houraccesstoaprofessional,confidentialcounsellingserviceandfreeannualhealthassessments.TheCourtadministersthisProgramonbehalfofallthejurisdictions.
PRO bONO SChEME
TheCostsAssessmentSchemecommencedon1July1994.Itistheprocessbywhichclientsandpractitionersdeterminetheamountofcoststobepaidintwoprincipalareas:betweenpractitionersandtheirclientsandparty/partycosts.Party/partycostsarecoststobepaidwhenanorderismadefromaCourt(orTribunal)forunspecifiedcosts.TheCostsAssessmentsectionoftheRegistryundertakestheday-to-dayadministrationoftheCostsAssessmentScheme.
TheCostsAssessmentSchemeistheexclusivemethodofassessmentoflegalcostsformostjurisdictions.ApplicationsundertheSchemearedeterminedbyexternalassessorsappointedbytheChiefJustice.Allassessorsaremembersofthelegalprofession.TheChiefJusticealsoappointscostsassessorstotheCostsAssessmentRulesCommittee.MrGordonSalierAM,solicitor,wastheChairoftheCostsAssessmentRulesCommitteeduring2009.TherewerenomeetingsoftheCostsAssessmentRulesCommitteein2009.
ACostsAssessmentUsers’Groupmeetsonaquarterlybasistodiscussissuesincostsassessmentfromauser’sperspective.TheCostsAssessmentUsers’GroupischairedbyJusticeBreretonandconsistsoftheManager,CostsAssessment,costsassessors,costsconsultantsandarepresentativeoftheOfficeoftheLegalServicesCommissioner.
During2009,1,991applicationswerelodged.Ofthese,1,081(54percent)relatedtocostsbetweenparties;253(13percent)werebroughtbyclientsagainstpractitioners,and502(25percent)werebroughtbypractitioners.Thereviewprocess,whichisrelativelyinformalinnature,iscarriedoutbytwoseniorassessorsofappropriateexperienceandexpertiseandisconductedalongsimilarlinestothatusedintheoriginalassessmentprocess.Thereviewpanelcanvarytheoriginalassessmentandisrequiredtoprovideashortstatementofitsreasons.In2009,155(eightpercent)applicationswerefiledforreviewofcostsassessments.
Thereisstillprovisiontoappealthereviewpanel’sdecisiontotheCourt,asofrightonquestionsoflawandotherwisebyleave.However,followingalegislativechangeon1September2008,theseappealsareheardintheDistrictCourt,nottheSupremeCourt,unlessinthecaseofaparty/partyapplicationapartyseeksleavetoappealtothecourtortribunalthatmadethecostsorder.
AdMINIStRAtION OF thE COStS ASSESSMENt SChEME
38
APPENdIx (I): NOtAbLE JUdGMENtS – SUMMARIES OF dECISIONSThe Court’s full text judgments are accessible online at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/caselaw
partlypaidshareswouldbecancelledduringaplannedrestructure.Theplaintiffclaimedthe11directorsbreachedsection180(1)byapprovingthememo’sdistributionwithoutamendment.
JusticeGzellmadearangeoffindingsconcerningthestockexchangeannouncements,mostly,butnotexclusively,supportingtheplaintiff’sallegations.HisHonourwassatisfiedJHIL’sboardcertainlyapprovedadraftannouncementthatexaggeratedtheadequacyofthefoundation’sfunding,anditsabilitytounreservedlycoverallfuturelegitimatedamagesclaims.JusticeGzelldismissedanysuggestionthatblamecouldbetransferredfromthedirectorstothoseresponsiblefordraftingtheannouncement,orthatanappreciationoftheannouncement’sinaccuracyrequireddetailedspecialistknowledge.Theannouncementconcernedamajorrestructure,thedetailsofwhichall11directorswerefamiliar,andwaswritteninplainEnglish.JusticeGzellfoundthat,byapprovingthedraftannouncement,all11executiveandnon-executivedirectorsfailedtodischargetheirdutieswiththecareanddiligencesection180(1)demands.
HisHonourmadefurtherfindingsabouttheexecutivedirectors.JusticeGzellfoundallfourexecutivedirectorshadadditionallybreachedsection180(1)whentheyfailedtodeclaretotherestoftheboardthattherewereknownlimitationsinthefinancialprojectionsreferredtointheannouncement.However,hisHonourwasnotpreparedtoallowtheplaintiff’sclaimthatthedirectorsbreachedtheirdutiesbyfailingtodeclarethattheprojectedliabilitiesforfutureasbestosclaimsweretoouncertain.
JusticeGzellalsoconsideredtheaddeddutiesonindividualexecutivedirectors.JHIL’sCEOandCompanySecretary,MrMacdonaldandMrShafron,wereuniquelypositionedtohavethegreatestinputintodecisionsaffectingthewhole,orasubstantialpart,ofJHIL’sbusiness.Consequently,JusticeGzellfoundtheyhadanaddedobligationtoalerttherestoftheboardtotheannouncement’sinaccuracies,andtheirfailuretodosoconstitutedanotherbreachofsection180(1).JusticeGzellalsofoundthat
1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11) ThisdecisionwasoneofseveraltheCourthandeddownindeterminingtheplaintiff’scivilpenaltyproceedingsagainstformerexecutiveandnon-executivedirectorsofJamesHardieIndustriesLimited(“JHIL”).Thisparticulardecisionwassignificantasitclarifiedthestatutorydutiesofexecutives,particularlythoseofnon-executivedirectors.
The12defendantsintheproceedingscomprisedthecompanybeingwoundup(ABN60PtyLtd,formerlyknownasJHIL),aDutchholdingcompany,threeexecutivedirectorsandsevennon-executivedirectorsofJHIL.JHILwastheholdingcompanyfortheJamesHardiegroupofcompanies.Thesecompanieswereresponsiblefortheproductionandsaleofasbestosproductsandsubjecttosignificantdamagesclaimsfrompeopleaffectedbyasbestosrelateddiseases.Whilethereweresomedifferencesintheclaimstheplaintiffmadeagainsteachdefendant,theyessentiallyrelatedtotheJHILboard’sroleinapprovinganddistributingseveralallegedlyfalseandmisleadingcommunications.
Thefirstaspectoftheplaintiff’sallegationsagainstthedirectorswasthattheyallegedlyapprovedfalseandmisleadingAustralianStockExchangeannouncementsaboutanindependentfoundationestablishedtocoverfuturedamagesclaimsforasbestosrelateddiseases.Thestatementsindicatedthefoundationwasfullyfundedandhadthecapacitytomeetallfuturelegitimateasbestosclaims.Theplaintiffallegedtheboard’sapprovaloffalseormisleadingstatementscontravenedsection180(1)oftheCorporations Act.Itfurtherallegedthatoneexecutivedirectorhadbreachedsection181(1)byfailingtoexercisehispowersanddischargehisdutiesingoodfaith,inthebestinterestsofthecorporation,andforaproperpurpose.
Thesecondaspectoftheplaintiff’sallegationsfocussedonamemorandumsenttomembersofJHILconcerningtheavailabilityofpartlypaidsharestomeetJHIL’sliabilities.ThememostatedthatthepartlypaidshareswouldallowJHILtocallontheresourcesofnewDutchholdingcompany,JamesHardieIndustriesNV(“JHINV”),ifitrequiredfundstomeetliabilities.Theplaintiffallegedthisstatementwasfalseormisleadingbecausetheboardknewthe
1. Examination and clarification of the differences between the statutory duties imposed on executive and non-executive directors
40
acompensationorderfor$92millioninfavourofOne.Tel(inliquidation),alongwithordersbanningthedefendantsfrommanagingacorporationforappropriateperiods.
ThiscasewasoneofthelargestciviltrialsintheCourt’shistory.Itwasheardover232days;involved67publishedinterlocutoryjudgments;generated16,000pagesoftranscript,andthepartieshandedupmorethan18volumesoffinalwrittensubmissions.
ASIC’scaseagainstthedefendantshingedupondemonstratingthat:
• thetruefinancialpositionoftheOne.TelGroupinthefourmonthsprecedingitscollapsewasmuchworsethanthatconveyedtotheboardofdirectors;
• financialforecastsprovidedtotheboardandthemarketthroughmediareleases,particularlyfortheperiodtoJune2001,hadnoproperbasis,and
• thedefendantswereeitherawareofthepoorfinancialposition(oratleastoughttohavebeen),anddeliberatelywithheldtheseissuesfromtheboard.
Insupportofitsclaims,ASICpresentedtheCourtwiththreecategoriesofdocuments:theAustralianfixedwire/serviceprovidermanagementaccounts;theAustralianagedcreditorreports,andcollectionprofilesummaries.JusticeAustinfoundthesedocumentsfailedtowithstandclosescrutiny,andwereonthewholetoounreliabletoformthebasisforsuchbroadfinancialfindings.ThisunreliabilitywascompoundedbyASIC’sfailuretobringforwardwitnessestoexplainthesecontentiousdocumentsandgiveevidenceastotheirstatus.
ASICwasalsounabletosufficientlyadvanceitscasethroughother,lesscontentiousevidence.Thedefendantswereconsistentlyabletoprovidealternate,plausibleexplanationsforwhatASICallegedhadoccurred.Also,theCourthadtorejectmanyofASIC’ssubmissionsastheystrayedoutsidethescopeofitspleading.AllthesefactorscompromisedASIC’sabilitytoproveitscasetotheappropriatecivilstandard.
Ultimately,JusticeAustinfoundthatASICfailedtoestablishthateitherdefendanthadbreachedthe
MrMacdonaldhadtheopportunitytoamendthestatementbeforeitspublicationandhisfailuretoremovethefalseormisleadingmaterialconstitutedanothercontraventionofsection180(1).HisHonouralsofoundthatMrMacdonald’sverbalrepititionofthefalseandmisleadingfinancialprojectionsatseveralroadshowpresentationswasyetanotherbreachofsection180(1).
However,JusticeGzellrejectedtheplaintiff’sallegationsthatMrMacdonaldhadbreachedsection181(1)oftheAct.HisHonourheldthatsection181(1)isonlycontravenedwhenadirectorknowinglyengagesinconductcontrarytoacompany’sinterests.WhileMrMacdonaldmayhaveexercisedpoorjudgmentinpromotingtheestablishmentofthefoundationtotheextenthedid,theevidencedidnotestablishanyimproperorcollateralmotivation.
Theplaintiffwasalsounsuccessfulinitsclaimsregardingthememorandumonpartlypaidshares.Theplaintiff’sallegationrestedonprovingthatatthetimethedirectorsapprovedthememo,theyknewthepartlypaidshareswouldbecancelled,orassumedthatthiswouldhappen.JusticeGzellcouldnotfindanyevidencetosupportthisintentionorassumption;therefore,thememorandumwasneitherfalsenormisleading.Noneoftheexecutiveornon-executivedirectorswerefoundtohavebreachedsection180(1)inthisrespect.
bench:GzellJCitation: AustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommissionvMacdonald(No11)[2009]NSWSC287[2009]ALMD5385;27ACLC522;71ACSR368;256ALR199;230FLRJudgment date:23April2009
2. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich MrRichandMrSilbermann(“thedefendants”)wererespectivelytheformerJointManagingDirectorandFinanceDirectorofOne.Tel,alargeAustralianlistedcompanythatcollapsedinMay2001.TheAustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommission(“ASIC”)allegedthatthedefendantscontravenedsection180oftheCorporationsAct(2001)(Cth).Thissectionimposesacivilpenaltyonanycompanydirectororofficershowntohavebreachedhisorherstatutorydutyofcareanddiligence.ASICsought
41
greatlyexceedingtheleveluponwhichtheBerjayaCompaniesfelttheyhadagreed.
Inaletterdated9September2004,MrAriffindicatedtotheBerjayaCompanies,themajorcreditors,thathewouldonlyseektorecoverhisfutureremunerationfromDeedFundNumber1,anaccountestablishedunderthedeedsofcompanyarrangement.Underthedeed,thisaccountcouldonlybeusedtopayMrAriff’sremunerationwithrespecttothepreparation,approvalandimplementationoftheDeed.AnyfeesordisbursementsMrAriffaccruedafter9September2004werenottoberecoveredfromDeedFundNumber1.ThisletterwasissuedinexchangefortheBerjayaCompanies’undertakingthattheywouldsupportMrAriff’sclaimforremunerationpayablesincehisappointmentasadministratoruntilthedateoftheletter,aperiodofroughlyninemonths.
AlthoughMrAriffdidnotconcedeheagreedtotheconditionsconveyedintheletter,JusticeBarrettfoundintheplaintiffs’favour.HisHonourheldthattherepresentationcontainedintheletterinducedtheBerjayaCompaniestoexpectthatMrAriffwoulddrawremunerationsolelyfromDeedFundNumber1,andthathewouldrefrainfromresortingtootherassetsoftheCarloversCompanies.MrAriffdidnothingtowarntheBerjayaCompaniesthatheintendedtodepartfromhisrepresentation.
JusticeBarrettalsoheldthat,whileMrAriff’srepresentationwasmadetotheBerjayacompaniesonly,theestoppelintheirfavourshouldextendtotheremaining10%ofshareholdersandcreditorswithaninterestintheCarloversCompanies.HisHonourmadeordersundersection447AoftheCorporations Act confirmingthatthedeedsofcompanyarrangementaretooperateandMrAriffmustlimithisremunerationconsistentwithhisrepresentationsmadeintheletterof9September2004.
AlittlemorethantwomonthsafterJusticeBarrettmadetheseorders,MrAriffappearedbeforeJusticeBerginfortheconclusionoftheASICcase.TheASICcasecommencedin2008followinganinvestigationASICundertookin2007.ThisinvestigationencompassedMrAriff’sconductastheliquidatorof16companies,includingtheCarloversCompanies.TheinvestigationledASICtoconcludethatMrAriffwasnotfaithfullyperforming
statutorydutyofcareanddiligencethatsection180oftheCorporationsActimposes.JusticeAustinfoundthat,althoughASIC’scontentionshadsomesuperficialappeal,theyweretimeandagainshowntobeunpersuasivewhentheunderlyingfinancialdetailwasinvestigated.
Withrespecttocosts,JusticeAustin’spreliminaryviewwasthatcostsshouldbeawardedonaparty/partybasis,asagreedorassessed.On5February2010,JusticeAustinorderedASICtopaythedefendants’legalcostsquantifiedatnearly$14million.
bench: AustinJCitation:AustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommissionvRich[2009]NSWSC1229;75ACSR1;236FLR1Judgment date: 18November2009
3. berjaya Group (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ariff; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AriffThesetwocasesfocussedontheconductofthesameAdministrator,MrAriff.Thefirstcase,the“Berjayacase”,concernedMrAriff’sattemptstosubvertrestrictionsonhisremunerationunderadeedofcompanyarrangement.MrAriff’sconductinthisregardledtohimbeingdeniedasubstantialportionofhisclaimedremunerationasanadministrator.TheevidencethatemergedfromtheBerjayacaseregardingMrAriff’sconductandchargingpracticesgaverise,inpart,tothesecondcase:the“ASICcase”.ThiswasanapplicationbytheAustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentCommission(ASIC)fortheCourttoexerciseitssupervisorypowersundertheCorporations Act 2001(Cth).
IntheBerjayacase,theplaintiffsweretwogroupsofrelatedcompaniesreferredtocollectivelyastheBerjayaCompaniesandtheCarloversCompanies.TheBerjayaCompanieswerethemajorshareholder(97%)andcreditor(90%)intheCarloversCompanies.MrAriffwasappointedtheadministratoroftheCarloversCompaniesunderadeedofcompanyarrangementpursuanttoPart5.3AoftheCorporations Act.Underthisarrangement,theCarloversCompaniesweretoremunerateMrAriff.ThedisputebeforetheCourtaroseafterMrAriffclaimedremuneration
42
4. Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales MrGoughandMrGilmourweretheownersandseniorexecutivesofthesecondrespondent,acompany(collectively“GoughandGilmour”).Caterpillar,theapplicant,enteredintothreeDealershipAgreementswiththesecondrespondentin1991forthesaleandservicingoftheapplicants’constructionandminingequipment.TheDealershipAgreements,alongwiththeLastResortPolicyandtheFourthAssurance,formedanOverallArrangement.TherewasabreakdownintherelationshipbetweenCaterpillarandGoughandGilmourthatleadtoCaterpillartoterminatethearrangements.
GoughandGilmourinstitutedproceedingsundersection106oftheIndustrial Relations Act 1996intheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales.JusticeBolandheldthatthecontractualarrangementwasunfairandmadeordersvaryingit.CaterpillarunsuccessfullychallengedthejurisdictionoftheIndustrialCourt,andappealedthatholdingtotheFullBenchwhichalsodismissedit.
CaterpillartheninvokedthesupervisoryjurisdictionoftheCourtofAppealpursuanttosections58(2)and69oftheSupreme Court Act1970,principallychallengingthejurisdictionoftheIndustrialCourttoorderthevariationofthecontractualarrangementspursuanttosection106(1).
TheChiefJustice(PresidentAllsopandJusticeTobiasagreeing)heldthatthereisasignificantdistinctionbetweenthesupervisoryjurisdictionofasuperiorcourtofgeneraljurisdiction,suchastheCourtofAppeal,andasuperiorcourtoflimitedjurisdiction,suchastheIndustrialCourt.TheCourtnotedthatdecisionswithrespecttojurisdictionalerrorbycourtscreatedunderChIIIoftheConstitutionareinstructivebutmustbetreatedwithcare.
Intheinterpretationofsection106(1),theCourtheldthatacourtisrequiredtohaveregardtothecontextinwhichwordsappear,without
hisdutiesasaninsolvencypractitioner,andthathisconductwascontrarytotheinterestsofcreditorsormembersofacompany.ASICapproachedtheCourtforordersundersections447Eand536oftheCorporations Act. UnderSection536,theCourtmayconductaninquiryintothematter,conductanexaminationoftheliquidator,andmakeanyordersitconsidersappropriateandjust,includingcompensation.
AftercontestingASIC’sclaimsforayear,MrAriffadmittedtothe83allegationsofmisconductlevelledagainsthim.Indoingso,MrAriffadmittedtochargingtheCarloversCompaniesforoverseastravelforhimselfandhisfamily,includingtravelexpensesandaccommodationchargesoveraperiodof4years.ThosetravelexpenseshadnothingtodowiththebusinessoftheCarloversCompanies.MrAriffalsoadmittedthathehadpaidfamilymemberslargeamountsofthecompanies’money,amountsthatheclaimedtobeforservicestothecompany,butinrealityhadnothingtodowiththeCarloverscompanies.MrAriffalsoadmittedtofailurestoproperlyadministernumerousothercompaniesandmakingunauthorisedandimproperpaymentstohimself.
MrAriffconsentedtodeclarationsinrelationtothe16companiestowhomhehadnotfaithfullyperformedhisdutiesasaliquidator,andmanagedinamannercontrarytotheinterestsofcreditorsandmembers.MrAriffalsoconsentedtoadeclarationthathewasunfittoholdtheofficeofliquidatorandthathebeprohibitedfromholdingthatofficeandagreedtopaycompensationtothecompanieshehadmismanaged.
FollowingMrAriff’sadmissions,JusticeBerginorderedthatMrAriffbeprohibitedforlifefromholdingtheofficeofofficialliquidator,registeredliquidator,liquidator,provisionalliquidator,voluntaryadministrator,administratorofadeedofcompanyarrangement,orcontroller.HerHonouralsoorderedthathepaycompensationtotalling$4.9milliontothe16companieshehadmismanaged.
bench: BarrettJ;BerginCJinEqCitations:BerjayaGroup(Aust)PtyLtdvAriff[2009]NSWSC569;AustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommissionvAriff[2009]NSWSC829Judgment dates: 18June2009;18August2009
4. Considers the scope of the Industrial Court of New South Wales’ jurisdiction under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, and the Court of Appeal’s supervisory jurisdiction over the Industrial Court
43
authorisationof“statutorywills”.ThesesectionsempowertheCourttomake,alterorrevokethewillofapersonlackingtestamentarycapacity.Thecombinedjudgmentinthesetwomattersisthefirstofitskind,andassuch,offerssignificantguidanceontheproperinterpretationandapplicationoftheselegislationprovisions.
TheapplicantinFenwick wasthesolecarerofhisyoungerbrother,anadultmale.Theapplicant’sbrotherwasplacedinhiscareaftersustainingsevereheadinjuriesinaworkplaceaccident.Theseinjuriesrenderedtheapplicant’sbrotherincapableofalteringthewillhehadmade10yearsbeforehisaccident.TheapplicantaskedtheCourttoauthoriseastatutorycodiciltotheexistingwilltoincludehisbrother’schildrenassupplementarybeneficiaries.
Allthebeneficiariesintheexistingwillwereolderthantheapplicant’sbrother,andsomehadsufferedfromlife-threateningillnesses.Consequently,itwasconceivablethattheapplicant’sbrotherwouldoutliveallofhisbeneficiaries.Thiseventwouldresultinanintestacy,whichcouldtriggerthecompletetransferofthesizeableestatetotheCrown.Withouttheproposedcodicil,theapplicant’sbrother’schildrenmightbedeniedashareoftheirownfather’sestate.
TheapplicantinthematterofCharles wastheMinisterforCommunityServices.TheMinisterappliedfortheauthorisationofastatutorywillonbehalfofachildwhohadbeenpermanentlyincapacitatedfollowinginjuriesconsistentwith“shakenbabysyndrome”.Whilethechild’sparentswereneverchargedwiththeoffence,thesurroundingcircumstancesandtheirinabilitytoexplainthechild’sinjuriescreatedsuspicionsabouttheiractions.
Asitcurrentlystood,ifthechildweretodieintestate,hisestate–whichincludedasubstantialawardfromtheVictimsCompensationTribunalforhisinjuries–wouldgoinequalsharestohisparentsundersection61B(5)Probate and Administration Act 1898.UnderthestatutorywilltheMinisterproposed,thechild’sestatewouldinsteadpasson
theneedtofirstidentifyanambiguity.Assuch,thephrase“wherebyapersonperformsworkinanyindustry”mustbeinterpretedintheoverallindustrialcontextoftheIndustrial Relations Act 1996.Theintroductionofsection106(2A)confirmsthat“wherebyapersonperformsworkinanyindustry”mustbereadandunderstoodinanindustrialcontext.Thisisreinforcedbythesecondreadingspeeches.TheFullBenchfailedtogiveexpressregardinitsreasonstotheindustrialcontextofthelegislativescheme.
TheCourtconsideredatrilogyofrecentHighCourtdecisionsFish v Solution 6 Holdings Ltd[2006]HCA22;(2006)225CLR180;Batterham v QSR Ltd [2006]HCA23;(2006)225CLR237andOld UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2006]HCA24;(2006)225CLR274,inapplyings106(1).Thefirststepistodeterminewhetherapersonperformsworkinanyindustryandthesecondstepistoidentifythearrangementswherebythatworkisperformed.TheFullBenchdidnottakethisapproachandwasinerrorinfailingtofocusonthecontractualarrangementbetweenthesecondrespondentandMessrsGoughandGilmour.
Thefurtherawaytherelevantcontractorarrangementisfromsomethingresemblinganemployer/employeerelationship,thelesslikelythatitsatisfiesthestatutory‘hinge’insection106.TheFullBencherredinconcludingthatMessrsGoughandGilmourwereperformingworkinanindustry.Therewasno“industrial”elementoftheworktheyperformed.Theywereentrepreneurswhoconductedanenterpriseofsignificantscale.Insofarastheyperformedwork,theydidnotperformitconsequenceoftheDealershipAgreementsortheOverallArrangement.Section106(2A)wasnotsatisfiedandcouldnotbeusedasabasistovarytheLastResortPolicyortheFourthAssurance.
bench:SpigelmanCJ;AllsopP;TobiasJACitation: CaterpillarofAustraliaPtyLtdvIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales[2009]NSWCA83Judgment date: 17April2009
5. Fenwick, Re; Application of J R Fenwick & Re Charles ThesetwoapplicationsrequiredtheCourttoexerciseitspowersundersections18to26oftheSuccession Act 2006, whichconcernthe
5. Interpretation and application of previously untested statutory will provisions in the Succession Act 2006
44
wassufficientbasisforthetrialjudgetoorderaninquiry,butonre-exercisingthediscretiondeclinedtoorderaninquiryinlightofthecircumstances.
Ininterpretingsection536,thecourtindicatedthattherangeofcomplaintsunders536(1)(b)isnotconfinedbysection536(1)(a),decliningtofollowVink v Tuckwell [2008]VSC100.Section536requirestheapplicanttodemonstratesomethingabouttheliquidator’sperformanceofdutiesthatisasufficientbasisformakinganorderforinquiry,buttheredoesnotneedtobeaprimafacieevidentiarycase.Ultimately,thecourthasadiscretiontoorderaninquiry,whichitmustexerciseinaccordancewithitssupervisoryroleofliquidationproceedings.Initsreasons,theCourtindicatedthatthereisnolesserdegreeofsupervisionofliquidatorssimplybecausetheyarenotcourt-appointedliquidators.
JusticeHodgsonandJusticeAustinheldthatacomplaintundersection536(1)(b)needonlybeacriticismexpressedtothecourt,inanycontext,withrespecttothefulfilmentoftheliquidator’sduties.Thereisnospecificformofcomplaintrequiredunderthatsection,orunderrule7.11(1)oftheSupreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999wherethecomplainantisalreadybeforethecourt.
TheChiefJusticeheldthatsection536(1)(b)requiresaformalrequesttothecourttomakeaninquiry,andthatalternativelyrule7.11(1)oftheSupreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999imposesamandatoryprocessformakingacomplaintundersection536(1)(b)bywayoforiginatingprocess.
TheCourtcommentedontherelationshipbetweensections536(1)and536(3)andonthefactorsrelevanttotheexerciseofdiscretiontoorderaninquiryundersection536.Itwasnotnecessarilyimproperforaliquidatortopursuelitigationwiththeaidoflitigationfundingevenincircumstanceswhererecoveryofmoniesforcreditorswasunlikely.However,aprimafacieviewbythetrialjudgethatthecostofproceedingswasdisproportionatetothemaximumpossiblerecoveryandthatthe
tohissister,ortovariouscharitableorganisationsshouldshepredeceasehim.
JusticePalmerauthorisedbothapplications.HisHonourwassatisfiedthatthepersonswhowouldotherwisehavebeenentitledtoadministertheestatesuponintestacy(intheabsenceofthestatutorycodicilorwill)didnotobjecttotheapplications.JusticePalmeralsoexaminedhistoricalantecedentstostatutorywillsinotherjurisdictionsdomesticallyandabroad,beforeultimatelydecidingNewSouthWalesshouldinsteadstartwitha“cleanslate”.
HisHonouralsoanalysedtherequirementsofsections18to22oftheAct,withparticularemphasisontheinterpretationofsection22(b).Thissectionrequiredexaminationofwhethertheproposedwill,alterationorrevocationwas,orwasreasonablylikelytobe,onethatthepersonwouldhavemadeifheorshehadtestamentarycapacity.Importantly,JusticePalmeridentifiedthesignificanceoftheperson’ssubjectiveintention inthethreecircumstancesinwhichtheCourtwouldinevitablyberequiredtoapplysection22(b):intentioninalostcapacitycase;intentioninanilcapacitycase,andintentioninapre-emptedcapacitycase.
bench:PalmerJCitation: Fenwick,Re;ApplicationofJRFenwick&ReCharles[2009]NSWSC530Judgment date: 12June2009
6. hall v Poolman Theliquidatorsoftwocompaniesinvoluntarywindingupcommencedrecoveryproceedingsagainsttwodirectorsofthecompanies,inaccordancewithanagreementwithalitigationfunder.Thelikelihoodofsecuringareturnforcreditorswasremote.Thedirectorsarguedthattheyshouldnotbeheldliableundersections1317Sand1318ofthe Corporations Act whensolittle,ifany,oftheproceedsofthelitigationwouldgotocreditors.Thatsubmissionwasunsuccessfulbutthetrialjudgeorderedaninquirypursuanttosections536(1)(a),536(1)(b)and536(3)ofthe Corporations Act.
IntheCourtofAppeal,theliquidatorschallengedthedecisiontoorderaninquiry.Theappealproceededwithoutacontradictor.TheChiefJustice,JusticeHodgsonandJusticeAustinheldthatthere
6. Clarifies the obligations on liquidators charged with undertaking recovery proceedings in which the likelihood of securing a return for creditors is remote
45
JusticeMcDougallconsideredthecommonlawprinciplesgoverningapatient’srightofself-determination.TwoestablishedyetconflictingthemesemergedfromHisHonour’sexplorationofthecommonlaw:
• thatacompetentadulthastherightofself-determinationoverhisorherbody;and
• thattheStatehasaninterestinprotectingandpreservingthelivesandhealthofitscitizens.
JusticeMcDougallwascarefultoclarifythatinthiscasetheCourtwasnotbeingaskedtoconsideranysuchnotionas“therighttodie”but,rather,torecogniseacompetentindividual’srighttorefusemedicaltreatment,evenifdeathmayresultfromthatdecision.
JusticeMcDougallconcludedthatthecourtshouldstartbyrespectingthepropositionthatacompetentindividual’srighttoself-determinationprevailsovertheState’sinterestinthepreservationoflife,eventhoughtheindividual’sexerciseofthatrightmayresultinhisorherdeath.IfanACDismadebyacapableadult,isclearandunambiguous,andextendstothesituationathand,itshouldberespected.Avalidrefusalmaybebaseduponreligious,socialormoralgrounds.Itmaybevalidevenifthereasonsareapparentlyirrational,unknownornon-existent.WhilstthecourtshouldundertakeacarefulanalysisofanACD,anover-carefulscrutinyofthematerialmaywellhavetheeffectofunderminingorevennegatingtheexerciseoftherightofself-determination.
However,hisHonouracknowledgedthattherewouldbesituationsinwhichtheCourtshouldquestionthevalidityandoperationofanACD.ButhisHonouremphasisedthatthesecircumstancesshouldbeconfinedto:
• wherethepersonisnotcompetentinlawtogiveorrefuseconsent;
• wheretheconsentorrefusalofconsentisobtainedbyundueinfluence;
• wheretheapparentconsentorrefusalofconsentdoesnotextendtotheparticularsituation;
• wherethetermsoftheconsentorrefusalofconsentareambiguous/uncertain;
proceedingscouldhavebeenconductedatasignificantlylowercost,wasasufficientbasistoorderaninquiry.
However,thereisnorequirementthatliquidatorsshouldroutinelyapproachthecourtsbeforeenteringintoalitigationfundingagreementanditisrelevanttoconsiderthepublicinterestintheproceedingsasafactorinthecourt’sexerciseofdiscretion.Infailingtoaccountforthesevariousfactorsappropriately,thetrialjudge’sexerciseofdiscretionmiscarried.
Inre-exercisingthediscretion,theCourtheldthattheredidnotappeartobeanyutilityinorderinganinquiry,inlightofthefactthatcostshadbeensettledandtheAustralian Securities and Investments Commissionhaddeclinedtoappearintheproceedings.
bench:SpigelmanCJ;HodgsonJA;AustinJCitation: HallvPoolman[2009]NSWCA64;254ALR333228;FLR16471;ACSR13975;NSWLR99Judgment date:31March2009
7. hunter and New England Area health Service v A by his tutor t
TheseproceedingsrequiredtheCourttodetermineifthedefendant’srefusaltoreceivemedicaltreatmentwasavalidexerciseofhisrightofself-determination.
On1July2009,thedefendant(“MrA”),wasadmittedintotheemergencydepartmentofahospitaladministeredbytheplaintiff(“theService”).MrAwassufferingfromsepticshockandrespiratoryfailureandinastateofdiminishedconsciousness.Hisconditiongraduallyworsened,andwithinafortnightMrAwasbeingkeptalivebymechanicalventilationandkidneydialysis.
On14July2009,theServicebecameawareofadocumentapparentlypreparedbyMrAayearearlier.ThedocumentindicatedthatMrAwouldrefusedialysis.ItwassubsequentlydiscoveredthatMrA’srefusaltoreceivedialysismostlikelystemmedfromhisreligiousbeliefs(MrAwasamemberoftheJehovah’sWitnesscongregation).TheServicesoughtdeclarationsfromtheCourtthatMrA’sdocumentwasavalid“AdvanceCareDirective”(“ACD”),andthatitwouldbejustifiedincomplyingwithhisrefusaltoreceivedialysis.
7. Guidance on the considerations for courts when determining an individual’s right of self-determination
46
process.IntheCourtofAppeal,Jamesonsoughttohavethosetwoorderssetaside.
TheChiefJustice(PresidentAllsopandJusticeIppagreeing)heldthatMrJusticeYoung’sdecisionwasanexerciseofthediscretionto“otherwiseorder”underrule7.4(2),andassuchshouldbereviewedintheCourtofAppealusingtheHouse v The King(1936)55CLR499approach,thatis,withdeferencetothetrialjudge’sdiscretion.
TheCourtofAppealheldthathisHonourfailedtotakeintoaccountorgivesufficientweighttoissueswhichwouldbecommontoallcases.TheseincludedtheissueoftherequiredcontentofaProductDisclosureStatement,haditbeenprovided,whichwouldlikelyinvolvesignificantcontestbetweentheparties.
HisHonouralsoerredinfindingthatthe“optin”natureoftherepresentativeactionweighedagainsttheproceedingscontinuingasrepresentativeproceedings.Rule7.4(2)oftheUCPRprovidesflexibilityandnoonesystemofrepresentativeproceedingsisnecessarilytobepreferredoveranother.Additionally,theFederalCourtschemeisnotapplicabletotheUCPRscheme.
Finally,theCourtofAppealindicatedthatitwasimportanttogiveweighttothesignificantaccesstojusticeissuesarisinginrepresentativeproceedings.Itwaslikelythatlitigationcostswouldhavepreventedtheactionproceedingsasaseriesofindividualcases.Courtsshouldgiveproperweighttotheaccesstojusticealitigationfundermightprovidetopeopleunabletoindividuallybeartherisksoflitigation.
bench: SpigelmanCJ;AllsopP;IppJACitation: JamesonvProfessionalInvestmentServicesPtyLtd[2009]NSWCA28;72NSWLR281;253ALR515Judgment date: 25February2009
• wheretheconsentorrefusalofconsenthasnotbeenmadeinresponsetotheprovisionofadequateinformationregardingthebenefitsoftreatmentandthedangersconsequentonrefusal.
Otherexceptionstothegeneralrightofanindividualtorefusemedicaltreatmentmayarisewheretheindividual’srefusaltoreceivetreatmentcompromisesthewidercommunity’shealth,orwherecarryingoutthepatient’swisheswillleadtothedeathofaviablefoetus.
JusticeMcDougallultimatelyconcludedthatMrA’sdocumentrepresentedaconsidereddecision,andthatwhenMrAmadethatdecision,hehadthelegalcapacitytoso.JusticeMcDougallalsofoundtherewasnoevidencetosuggestMrA’sexpressionofintentwassubjecttoundueinfluence,orthatitwasinanywayunclearoruninformed.HisHonourdeclaredthattheACDwasvalidandthatServicewouldbejustifiedinceasingdialysis.
bench: McDougallJCitation: HunterandNewEnglandAreaHealthServicevAbyhistutorT [2009]NSWSC761;74NSWLR88Judgment date: 6August2009
8. Jameson v Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd Jamesonsoughttobringarepresentativeactionunderrule7.4oftheUniform Civil Procedure Rules(‘UCPR’),onbehalfofagroupofinvestorswhohadacquiredpromissorynotesfromacompanyinliquidationwithintheWestpointGroupofcompanies.JamesonallegedthateachinvestorobtainedthepromissorynotesonthebasisofrecommendationsmadebyauthorisedrepresentativesofProfessionalInvestmentServicesPtyLtd.Jamesonsubmittedthattheserecommendationsbreachedvariouscompanylawstatutoryduties,suchasfailuretoprovideaproductdisclosurestatement,failuretoprovideappropriateadvice,andmisrepresentation.
MrJusticeYoung,theChiefJudgeinEquityatthattime,madeanorderthattheproceedingsnotcontinueasrepresentativeproceedings.HisHonouralsorefusedtograntleavetoamendtheoriginating
8. Courts should give proper weight to the access to justice a litigation funder might provide to people unable to individually bear the risks of litigation
47
pointandintendeddestination,andthelesserlikelihoodoffaresinthatstreet.
JusticeHoebenacceptedthatthetestinBriginshaw v Briginshaw (1938)60CLR336settherelevantstandardofproofinthepresentcase.Inacircumstantialcase,itissufficientifthecircumstancesraiseamoreprobableinferenceinfavourofwhatisalleged.Applyingthistest,JusticeHoebenwassatisfiedthatthetaxibeingdrivenbyMrRwasindeedtheoneinvolvedintheaccident.DespiteMrR’sinsistencetothecontrary,JusticeHoebenwassatisfiedthatthemostlogicalrouteforMrRtotakewouldseehimdrivedirectlypastthesceneoftheaccident.Secondly,MrR’srefusalofworkinthatlocationfollowingthetimeoftheaccident,butlateracceptanceofajobelsewhere,raisedaninferencethatsomethingunusualoruntowardhadoccurredinthatparticularlocation.Finally,theexclusionofothertaxismadeitimprobablethatanothertaximatchingthedescriptionofMrA’staxiwasinthelocationoftheaccidentatthetime.
JusticeHoebenawardedMrPenrosedamages,tobepaidbyMrAasassessed.HisHonouralsoorderedMrAtopaybothMrPenrose’sandtheNominalDefendant’scosts.
bench: HoebenJCitation:PenrosevNominalDefendant&Anor[2009]NSWSC1187Judgment date: 12November2009
10. R v borkowski ThiswasaCrownappealchallengingtheadequacyofasentencedeliveredinthePenrithDistrictCourt.TheCrownsubmittedthatthetrialjudge’ssentencewasmanifestlyinadequate.Amongotherthings,theCrownarguedthatthetrialjudgeerredwhenheappliedthemaximumallowablediscounttoasentenceinrecognitionofMrBorkowski’s(therespondent’s)guiltyplea.TheCourt’sjudgmentinthisCrownappealoffersguidanceontheprinciplesthatshouldgovernasentencingjudge’sapplicationofthe“utilitariandiscount”foranearlypleaofguilty.Althoughthisguidancewasnotstrictlyrequired
9. Penrose v Nominal defendant & AnorThiscaserequiredtheCourttodeterminewhethercircumstantialevidenceinacivilcasecanleadtoafindingofseriousmisconductagainstadefendant.
Theplaintiff,MrPenrose,sufferedcatastrophicinjuriesinamotoraccident.MrPenrosehadattemptedtogetintoataxiwhenitdroveaway.MrPenrosewasdraggedfromthemovingvehicleforover300mbeforefallingaway.Thetaxidroveawaywithoutstopping.AsneitherMrPenrosenoranywitnesscouldidentifythetaxiordriverinvolved,theproceedingswerecommencedagainsttheNominalDefendant.FollowinginquiriesbytheNominalDefendant,MrPenroseaddedtheseconddefendant,knownasMrA,theownerofthetaxithoughttobeinvolvedintheaccident.
Themainissueinthecasewaswhether,onthebalanceofprobabilities,MrA’staxiwastheoneinvolvedintheaccident.WhiletherewasnodirectevidencetodefinitivelyproveMrA’staxiwasinvolved,itwasthesamemakeandmodel,hadthesamedistinguishingfeaturesdescribedbywitnesses,andwasconsistentinappearancewiththetaxicapturedinCCTVfootageoftheaccident.
GPSdatafromMrA’staxishoweditwasinthevicinityoftheaccidentbothshortlybeforeandaftertheaccident.ComputerrecordsalsoshowedthatthedriverofMrA’staxirefusedanotherjobintheaccident’svicinitythatnight,butacceptedworkinadifferentareasoonafter.
TheNominalDefendantintroducedevidenceinanefforttoexcludeothertaxisofthesamemakeandmodelactiveatthetimeoftheaccident.Althoughnotallsuchtaxiscouldbeexcludedandtheevidencewasnotexhaustive,itwassufficienttoindicatetherewerefewothertaxisthatcouldhavebeeninvolvedintheincident.Therefore,itwasmoreprobablethannotthatMrA’staxiwastheoneinvolvedintheaccident.
ThedriverofMrA’staxiatthetimeoftheaccident,knownasMrR,insistedhewasnotinvolvedintheaccident.MrRtestifiedthathecouldnotrememberwhetherornothedrovethetaxipastthesceneoftheaccident.WhenpresentedwithGPSdataplacinghimnearthescene,MrRrefusedtoaccepthewouldlogicallyhavedrivendownthestreetinwhichtheaccidenttookplacegivenhisdeparture
9. Examination of the required standard of proof in a civil proceedings for a finding serious misconduct on purely circumstantial evidence
48
arraignment,andnotatcommittalstageorsooner,cannotjustifyadiscountgreaterthanthisunlessthereareexceptionalcircumstances.However,duetoseveralerrorsbytheCrown,includingerroneouslyconcedingatMrBorkowski’ssentencethatthediscountshouldbe20–22.5percent,theCourtdetermineditshouldnotinterfereinthisinstanceandultimatelydismissedtheCrown’sappeal.
bench: McClellanCJatCLat1;SimpsonJat2;HowieJat5Citation: RvBorkowski[2009]NSWCCA102;195ACrimR1;52MVR528;[2009]ALMD4819;[2009]ALMD4858Judgment date:15April2009
11. R v bW & SW ThiscaserequiredtheCourttodetermineanappropriatesentenceforamother(“SW”)andfather(“BW”)foundtoberesponsibleforthedeathoftheir7-year-olddaughter,Ebony.
Ebonywasfounddeadinherbedroomon3November2007.Apostmortemexaminationrevealedsheweighedonlyninekilogramsandshehadbeenthevictimofprolongedandextremeneglect.
ThejuryfoundSWguiltyofEbony’smurder.Indoingso,thejuryacknowledgedSWdeliberatelyfailedtoensureEbonyreceivedadequatenourishmentormedicalattentionreflecting,atworst,anintentiontokillEbony,orattheveryleast,arecklessindifferencetoherlife.ThejuryfoundBWguiltyofthelesseralternatechargeofmanslaughterthroughcriminalnegligence.ThejuryconfirmedthatBWhadbreachedhisdutyofcarebyfailingtoensureEbonyreceivedadequatenourishmentormedicalattention,andthatthisbreachhadcontributedtoherdeath.
Beforedeterminingappropriatesentences,JusticeRAHulmechronicledattributesofEbony’sshortlifethatofferedinsightintotheoffenders’ultimateresponsibilityforherdeath,andthegravityoftheiroffences.
Bytheageoffive,Ebonywasdiagnosedwithglobaldevelopmentaldelayandautism.TheseconditionsincreasedEbony’svulnerabilityandreducedhercapacitytodefendherselfagainstherparents’escalatingneglect.Althoughtherewasconsiderableevidencetosuggestapatternofparentalneglect
todeterminetheappeal,itreflectstheCourt’sgrowingawarenessthatdecisionshandeddowninsomecriminalcourtsdidnotreflectestablishedsentencingprinciples.
The“utilitariandiscount”isamathematicallyappliedreductiontothesentenceofapersonwhohaspleadedguiltytoanoffence.Therateofdiscountrangesfromtento25percent,anddependsuponvariousfactors,principallythetimeatwhichthepleaofguiltywasentered.
TherespondentpleadedguiltyonarraignmentintheDistrictCourttotwochargesofmanslaughterfollowingastreet-racingincident.ThetrialjudgesentencedMrBorkowskitonineyears’imprisonment,withaminimumperiodofsixyearstobeservedfromthedatehewascharged.Thispenaltyincludeda25percentdiscountforpleadingguiltyatthecommencementofhisarraignmentinthePenrithDistrictCourt.Thetrialjudgeindicatedtherewasalocalpracticeatthatparticularcourtwherebypeoplewhoenteredapleaofguiltyonarraignmentwerealwaysawardedthemaximumdiscount.
TheCourtheldthatthediscounttobeappliedforapleaofguiltydoesnotdependupontheadministrativearrangementsorpracticeofaparticularcourtorjudge.TheCourtreinforcedtheneedfortheState’scriminalcourtstoapplythediscountinaccordancewithsentencingprinciplessetoutinstatute,andsupplementedbythedecisionsoftheappellatecourts.
TheCourtprovidedasummaryofthegeneralprinciplesapplicabletodeterminingtheappropriatediscount.Asamatterofgeneralpractice,themaximumdiscountshouldbeawardedonlytothoseaccusedpersonswhopleadguiltyintheLocalCourt,andcontinuethatpleainahighercourt.Theremaybeavalidreasonforawardingthemaximumdiscountwherethisdoesnotoccur,butthereasonwouldhavetobeexceptional.
InMrBorkowski’scase,theCourtfoundthatthetrialjudgeshouldnothaveappliedmorethana15percentdiscounttohissentence.TheCourtconsideredthatintheusualcase,apleaofguiltyon
10. Discusses the proper considerations when applying the utilitarian discount to an offender’s sentence
49
concludedSWwouldhavebeenwellawareofEbony’sdistressinherfinalweeks,yetstillchosetodonothingaboutit.HisHonourfoundthatnoneofSW’spersonalcircumstancesreducedherextremeculpabilityforEbony’sdeathandthatonlythemaximumsentenceoflifeimprisonmentwasappropriate.
bench:RAHulmeJCitation:RvBW&SW[2009]NSWSC1043Judgment date:2October2009
12. R v khazaal ThiscaserequiredtheCourttodetermineanappropriatesentenceforMrBelalKhazaal.MrKhazaalwasconvictedofknowinglymakingadocumentthatcouldbeusedtoassistinaterroristact,anoffenceundersection101.5(1)oftheCriminal Code (Cth).Themaximumsentenceforthisoffenceis15yearsimprisonment.
Between20and23September2003,MrKhazaaldownloadednumerousarticlesfromtheInternettoproduceabookentitled“ProvisionsontheRulesofJihad”.MrKhazaalmadesomeeditorialchangestothearticlesandaddedsomecommentaryofhisowntothebook.MrKhazaalsubsequentlysubmittedhisdocumenttoawebsitepossiblyendorsedbyalQaedainthehopethatitmightbepublishedonthatsite.
TheCrownallegedthatthefirsthalfofthebookadvancedreligiousorideologicaljustificationsfor“Jihad”,whilethesecondhalfprovidedpracticalguidancetoachievingmartyrdomanddestroyingthosewhowouldopposeoroppressIslam.Thebookincludedmaterialthatreferredtotargetingforeigngovernmentsandofficials,methodsofassassination,andthecommissionofactsofviolenceinthenameofrestoringthenationofIslam.
JusticeLathamconsideredtheobjectivegravityoftheoffenceinconsiderabledetail.HerHonourrejectedMrKhazaal’ssubmissionthatthejury’sfailuretofindheintendedtoincitethecommissionofaterroristactlessenedthegravityofhisoffence.HerHonouralsodeclinedtoacceptthattheCrown’sinabilitytodemonstratealinkbetweenMrKhazaal’sdocumentandthecommissionofanyspecificterroristactreducedtheobjectivegravityofhisoffence.Thevolume,detailandaccuracy
throughoutEbony’slife,thesituationdeterioratedsignificantlyinthefinal16monthsofherlife.Ebonywasaprisonerinherbedroomandexcludedfromfamilycelebrations.Theroominwhichshediedwasfilthyanddoubledashertoilet.Herbedroomwasdevoidofanyhouseholditemsexceptsoiledbedding,andtherewerenotoysinEbony’sroom.
WhileEbony’slivingconditionswouldhaveintensifiedherdistressleadinguptoherdeath,undoubtedlythesymptomsofchronicstarvationwerehergreatestsourceofsuffering.Expertmedicalevidenceindicatedthatsuchseveremalnutritioncouldonlyhaveresultedafterweeks,ormanymonths,ofstarvation.MedicalevidencealsoconfirmedthatextremehungerwouldhavepromptedbehaviouralchangesinEbony,andherdistressmusthavebeenobvioustoanyadultwhosawher.
BeforesentencingSWandBW,JusticeHulmeconsiderediftherewereanyfactorsthatmightamelioratetheirresponsibilityforEbony’sdeath.HisHonourrefusedtoacceptthattheirabuseofprescriptiondrugsprohibitedthemfromperceivingEbony’sdeterioratingcondition,orfromhavingthecapacitytodosomethingaboutit.WhileconcedingtheyshowedsomesignsofacceptingresponsibilityforEbony’sdeathandtherewaslittlechanceofeitherparentre-offending,hisHonourstressedtheneedforbothparents’sentencestocontainasignificantelementofgeneraldeterrence.
InsentencingBW,hisHonouracceptedhehadthelesserroleincaringforofEbonyandthathehadnotseenherwhenherdeathwasimminent.Nevertheless,BWstillfailedtointervenewithanyassistanceuponobservingherobviouslypoorconditionleadinguptoherdeath.HisHonourconcludedthatthedifferencebetweenthestandardofcarethatareasonablepersonwouldhaveexercised,andthatwhichBWexercised,wasvast.JusticeHulmefoundtheobjectivegravityofBW’soffencewaswithintheworstcategoryforthecrimeofmanslaughter.BWwassentencedto16years’imprisonment,withanon-paroleperiodof12years.
WhensentencingSW,HisHonourconsideredherestablishedphysicalandmentalhealthproblems,andclaimsthatBWwasphysicallyabusivetowardsher.Notwithstandingthesefactors,JusticeHulme
50
RachelPfitzner,waschargedwithDean’smurder,achargetowhichshepleadedguilty.
MsPfitznerhadonlyrecentlyresumedlimitedparentalcontactwithhersonfollowingacustodybattlewithDean’spaternalgrandmother.Asaresultoftheseproceedings,Dean’sgrandmotherretainedoverallcustodyofDean,butMsPfitznerwasawardedaccesstohersonfordefined,scheduledperiods.TheseinterimordersweremadeinJune2007.
AlthoughMsPfiznerwasinitiallypleasedtohaverenewedcontactwithherson,shebecameincreasinglyresentfulofDean’spresenceandreactedwithunjustifiableangertowardshim.MsPfitznertoldpeoplethatDeanremindedherofhisfather,amanwhowasviolenttowardsherduringthetimetheyweretogether.BruiseswereevidentonDean’sbodywhenhedied,andsomewitnessestestifiedthatMsPfitznerwouldhitDeanseveraltimesaday.TherewasalsoevidencethatDeanwasseverelyneglected,oftenorderedtoremainoutsideofthefamilialhomewhilepleadingtobeallowedinside.
InlateJuly2007,theoffenderdidnotreturnDeanafterascheduledaccessperiod.Dean’sgrandmothercommencedcourtproceedingsinanattempttocompelDean’sreturn.AhearingtodeterminethisissueintheFederalMagistrate’sCourtwasscheduledforlateSeptember2007,butsubsequentlyadjournedto11October2007.TherecoveryordermadeonthisdatewasnevergiveneffectasitcoincidedwiththedayMsPfitznerkilledherson.
JusticeHulmeconsideredtheobjectiveseriousnessofMsPfitzner’soffenceandwhetherthestandardnon-paroleperiodof25imprisonmentyearsshouldbeimposed.HisHonouracknowledgedthattheoffencewasunplannedandspontaneous.IthadoccurredinlightofMsPfitzner’sawarenessthatshewasunlikelytosucceedinthecustodyproceedingsandwasonthevergeofhavingtorelinquishhersontohisgrandmother’scare.WhileMsPfitznerhadundoubtedlyintendedtoharmherson,shehadnotwishedtokillhim.However,theoffencedidoccuraspartofacourseofongoingmistreatment,andtherewasnothingtosuggestMsPfitznerwasoperatingunderanymentalconditionthatreducedhermoralculpability.
ofthedocumentconcerningthecommissionofterroristacts,combinedwiththenatureandextentoftheharmitcouldcause,ledJusticeLathamtoconcludethattheoffencewasnotfarfromtheworstcategoryenvisagedunder101.5(1).Consequently,MrKhazaal’soffencecalledforasentenceclosetothemaximumpenalty.
JusticeLathamthenconsideredKhazaal’ssubjectivecircumstances.WhiletherewasevidencetosuggestMrKhazaalexhibitedsymptomsofanxietyanddepression,JusticeLathamconcludedthattheserelatedalmostwhollytothecircumstancesofhisarrest,chargeandconviction,anddidnotcontributetohiscommissionoftheoffence.Consequently,theimpositionofalessersentencethanotherwiseappropriatewasnotwarrantedforreasonsofillhealth.
JusticeLathamthenconsideredthequestionofcharacter.AfterconsideringsomeevidenceindicatingthatMrKhazaalhadbeenconvictedofseveralcriminaloffencesinLebanon,herHonourconcludedthatKhazaalcouldnotbeconsideredapersonofgoodcharacter.However,herHonourremarkedthattheissueofgoodcharacterwasofminimalsignificancetothissentencingexercisegiventheseriousnatureoftheoffence.HerHonouralsoconcludedthatMrKhazaal’slackofremorseandacknowledgementofhisextremistviews,togetherwithhisrepeatedattemptstounderplaytheseverityofhisoffence,reducedhisprospectsofrehabilitation.
JusticeLathamultimatelysentencedMrKhazaalto12yearsimprisonmentwithanon-paroleperiodof9years.
bench: LathamJCitation: RvKhazaal[2009]NSWSC1015Judgment date:25September2009
13. R v Pfitzner* InmidOctober2007,achild’sbodywasfoundfloatinginapond.Apostmortemexaminationrevealedthatthechild,Dean,haddiedfromasphyxiationseveraldaysbeforehisbodywasdisposedofinthepond.TheexaminationrevealedthatDeanhadbeenshaken,choked,andpossiblysuffocated,althoughtheexactmannerinwhichhewasasphyxiatedremainedunclear.Dean’smother,
51
Gloriaandadministeringhertreatment.GloriawasalsoseenoncebyotherhomeopathsduringatriptoIndiaseveralweeksbeforeherdeath.
Gloria’seczemaultimatelycoveredherentirebody.ItcausedGloriatobecomeseverelymalnourishedandshedevelopedaninfectioninherlefteye.Thetotalityofthesesymptomsculminatedinadisseminatedinfection,whichwasthedirectcauseofherdeath.AlthoughGloria’sparentshadtakenhertohospitalon5May2002(aweekaftertheirreturnfromIndia),herconditionbythattimewassuchthatmedicaltreatmentcouldnotsaveherlife.
TheOffenderswerechargedwiththeoffenceofmanslaughterbycriminalnegligence;thejuryfoundbothOffendersguiltyofthischarge.Implicitinthejury’sverdictswasafindingthattheconductoftheOffendersfellfarshortofthestandardofcareofGloriathatareasonablepersonwouldbeexpectedtoexerciseinresponsetothosecircumstances.Inpassingsentence,theCourthadtodeterminetheseriousnessofeachparent’soffence.
WhileitwasacceptedattrialthatbothOffendersowedadutyofcaretoGloriaas“reasonableparents”,anissuewaswhetherThomasSamowedaspecialdutyofcareasa“reasonablehomeopath”.Theevidencegivenbyhomeopathsduringthetrialuniversallyindicatedthathomeopathictreatmentcouldbetriedforaperiod,butifnoimprovementwasobserved,medicalassessmentwasnecessary.JusticeJohnsonconcludedthatMrSamdidinfactoweanadditionaldutyofcaretowardshisdaughterasahomeopath,andthathehadfallengravelyshortoftheexpectedstandardofcareinthisregard.Thisfinding,coupledwiththeevidencethatsuggestedMrSamplayedthedominantroleindeterminingthecourseofGloria’streatment,ledhisHonourtoultimatelyconcludethatThomasSam’soffencewasobjectivelymoreseriousthanthatofhiswife.
BeforesentencingtheOffenders,JusticeJohnsonacknowledgedthatanysentenceimposedmustconveyanelementofgeneraldeterrenceastheprotectionofchildrenisoffundamentalimportancetosociety.Thesentencehadtodemonstratethattheunlawfulhomicideofachild,particularlyatthehandsofthoseentrustedwiththatchild’scare,isacrimethatispunishedseverely.HisHonouralsofeltthesentenceofThomasSamshould
JusticeHulmestressedtheimportanceofgeneraldeterrenceinamatterinvolvingthemurderofayoungchild.HisHonourmadenofindingsinfavouroftheoffenderthatwouldsuggestshewasunlikelytore-offend,orthatshehadgoodprospectsofrehabilitation.MsPfitznerhadaconsiderablecriminalhistoryandwasevensubjecttoagoodbehaviourbondatthetimeofDean’sdeath.HerclearbreachofthisbondwasanaggravatingfactortobetakenintoaccountinhersentenceforDean’smurder.
Ultimately,havingtakenMsPfitzner’sguiltypleaintoaccountandassessingtheobjectiveseriousnessofheroffenceasbeingslightlybelowthemiddleoftherange,HisHonoursentencedMsPfitznertoatermofimprisonmentof25yearsandsixmonths.JusticeHulmedeterminedthenon-paroleperiodshouldbesetat19yearsandtwomonths.
bench:RAHulmeJCitation: RvPfitzner[2009]NSWSC1267Judgment date:9December2009*This decision is subject to an ongoing appeal.
14. R v thomas Sam; R v Manju SamThiscaserequiredtheCourttodetermineanappropriatesentenceforacouplefoundtobecriminallyresponsibleforthedeathoftheirinfantdaughter.
Thefactsthatgaverisetotheseproceedingswereasfollows.GloriaMaryThomaswasborntoThomasSamandManjuSam(“theOffenders”)on18July2001.BothGloria’sparentswerewell-educatedand,relevantly,herfatherThomaswasaqualifiedandpractisinghomeopath.InOctober2001,Gloriawasdiagnosedwitheczema.BetweenOctober2001andMay2002,Gloriadisplayedclearandmanifestsymptomsofeczema.Gloriadiedon8May2002,threedaysafterheradmissiontoSydneyChildren’sHospitalatRandwick.
Ashereczemaworsened,avarietyofmedicalprofessionalsinbothAustraliaandIndiasuggestedthatGlorianeededspecialisttreatmentfromadermatologist.TheOffendersrepeatedlychosetodisregardthisadvice,persistinginsteadwithhomeopathictreatment.Advicewasreceivedfromseveralhomeopaths,howeverThomasSamwastheonlyhomeopathinAustraliaactuallyexamining
52
containawarningtoalternativehealthprovidersabouttheconsequencesoffailingtoensureapatientreceivesconventionalmedicaltreatmentifalternativetreatmentsfail.AftertakingintoaccountthedelayinprosecutingtheOffenders,theeffecttheirincarcerationwouldhaveonthecouple’sotheryoungchildandothersubjectivematters,hisHonourheldthatfulltimeimprisonmentwastheonlyappropriatesentenceforbothOffendersinthecircumstances,withManjuSamtoreceiveashortersentencetoreflectherlessercriminality.
bench: JohnsonJCitation: RvThomasSam;RvManjuSam(No18)[2009]NSWSC1003Judgment date: 28September2009* This decision is the subject of an ongoing appeal.
15. Stewart v RonaldsMrStewartwasamemberoftheLowerHouseoftheNewSouthWalesParliament,andaMinisterandmemberoftheExecutiveCouncil.In2008,theLieutenant-GovernorwithdrewthecommissionsthatgaveeffecttohisMinisterialappointment,actingontherecommendationofthePremierofNewSouthWales.ThePremierhadprivatelyengagedMsRonalds,thedefendant,toinvestigateallegationsthatMrStewartbehavedimproperlytowardsafemalecolleague,andtoprepareareportofherfindingsfortablinginParliament.MsRonaldsfoundtheallegationswerejustified.ThePremiersubsequentlylostconfidenceinMrStewartandsoughthisremovalfromtheMinistryandtheExecutiveCouncil.
MrStewartcommencedproceedingsintheSupremeCourtallegingthattheLieutenant-Governor’sactionswerevoidfordenialofproceduralfairness.ThoseproceedingsweretransferredtotheCourtofAppealtodetermineseveralpreliminaryquestionsoflawthatraisedimportantConstitutionalquestionsastowhetherthedecisionsofthePremierandLieutenant-Governoraresubjecttojudicialreviewortheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.
PresidentAllsopremarkedthattheseissuesmust,alongwiththeConstitution Act1902itself,beexaminedagainstthebackgroundofresponsible
government.AfundamentalaspectofthesystemofresponsiblegovernmentinNewSouthWalesisthattheoperationoftheExecutiveisguidedbyParliament.Exceptforreservepowers,noexecutivepowershouldbeexercisedwithoutfirstreceivingadvicefromthegovernmentandwithoutrecognisingtheresponsibilityoftheExecutivetotheParliament.
TheCourtheldthattheLieutenant-Governoractedinaccordancewithss35C(2)and35E(2)oftheConstitution Act 1902 (NSW).section35oftheConstitution Act 1902enablestheGovernortoappointmembersoftheExecutiveCouncilandMinistersoftheState,providingthatanysuchappointmentis“attheGovernor’spleasure”.Notwithstanding,theCourtacknowledgedthatanysuchdecisionsareinherentlypolitical.Thephrase“attheGovernor’spleasure”reflectsthewidthofthepoliticalconsiderationsattendantupon,andcapableofinforming,thePremier’sadviceregardingtheMinistry’scomposition,andanydecisionsflowingfromthisadvice.
IftheCourtweretoscrutinisethePremier’sadvicetotheLieutenant-GovernorregardingthecompositionoftheMinistry,thiswouldbetantamounttoreviewingthepoliticalprocess.ThisisnotafunctionoftheCourt,butthepreserveofParliament.
Additionally,thephrase“attheGovernor’spleasure”indicatesthattheGovernor(orLieutenant-Governor)andPremierowenodutyofproceduralfairnessinmakingappointmentdecisions.Inthiscontext,thephrasemeansthattheMrStewarthadnorighttobeheardbeforedismissalandthatnoreasonsareneeded;theofficeisterminableforgood,orbad,orno,reasons.
TheCourtdismissedtheappeal.
bench: AllsopP;HodgsonJA;HandleyAJACitation: StewartvRonalds[2009]NSWCA277Judgment date: 4September2009
15. The acts and decisions of the Premier and Lieutenant-Governor are outside the scope of judicial review
53
JusticeMcCallumacceptedthedoctors’submission.HerHonournotedthatsection601AGwasremedialinnature,creatingadiscretecauseofaction,notaclaimfordamages.JusticeMcCallumfoundthattheconditionsofrecoveryundersection601AGcouldbemetifitwereprovedatthetimeoffinalhearingthatthehospitalandthedoctorsweretortfeasorseachliabletotheplaintiffsandentitledtorecovercontributionfromeachother.ItwasnotnecessaryforthedoctorstoprovethatanyliabilitytheymayhavetotheplaintiffshadbeendeterminedbeforetheHospitalwasderegistered.
Withrespecttowhethertheinsurancecontract“coveredtheliability”,theInsurersubmittedthatitspolicyonlyindemnifiedtheHospitalforclaims“…forwhich[it]shallbecomelegallyliable…”.TheInsureragainrelieduponthenotionthatthecontractcouldonlycoveraliabilitythathadbeenestablishedbyajudgment,awardorsettlementinthenegligenceproceedingsbeforethederegistrationdate.Bycontrast,thedoctorscontendedthattheonlyquestiontheCourtneedaskwaswhetherthepolicyinplaceatthetimeofderegistrationcoveredtheHospitalinthecircumstancesthatgaverisetothenegligenceclaims.
JusticeMcCallumonceagainacceptedthedoctors’submissions.HerHonourconsideredittobereasonablyarguablethat,ifitisestablishedatafinalhearingthattheHospitalhadaliabilitytothedoctors,andthedoctorsestablishthatthepolicyrespondstothatliability,thedoctorswillhaveshownthatthepolicy“coveredthatliability”immediatelybeforederegistrationofthehospital.JusticeMcCallumfoundthatthedoctorsshouldhaveleavetofiletheamendedcrossclaimsagainsttheInsurerundersection601AG.
bench: McCallumJCitation:TzaidasvChild&Ors[2009]NSWSC465;[2009]ALMD4244;257ALR394;27ACLC805;74NSWLR208;230FLR475;72ACSR112;72ACSR112;257ALR394;230FLR475Judgment date: 29May2009
16. tzaidas v Child & Ors [2009] NSWSC 465Across-claimfiledbytwodoctorsinanongoingprofessionalnegligencecaserequiredtheCourttoexaminetheproperconstructionofsection601AGofthe Corporations Act 2001(Cth).Thatsectionprovidesamechanismforaclaimagainstaderegisteredcompanytobepursuedagainstitsinsurer.Itenablesaperson,subjecttothesatisfactionofcertainconditions,torecoverfromthederegisteredcompany’sinsureranamountthatwaspayabletothecompanyundertherelevantcontractofinsurance.
Thenegligenceclaimswerecommencedin2001andareyettobedeterminedbytheCourt.Theplaintiffs’claimswerebroughtagainstHurstvilleCommunityCo-operativeHospital(“theHospital”),twoofitsresidentdoctorsandCGUInsuranceLimited(“theInsurer”).Thedoctorsbroughtcross-claimsagainsttheHospitalseekingcontributionasajointtortfeasor,buttheHospitalhadbeenderegisteredinthemeantime,in2005.
Thedoctorsthenfiledamendedcrossclaimsseekingreliefundersection601AGoftheCorporations Act. TheysoughttorecoverfromtheInsurertheamountitwouldhavepaidtotheHospitalunderitspolicyinrespectofthedoctors’claimsforcontribution.Anessentialelementofthedoctors’crossclaimswastoprovetheHospitalhadaliabilitytothemimmediatelybeforeitsderegistration,andthattheHospital’sinsurancepolicycoveredthatliabilityimmediatelybeforeitsderegistration.
TheInsurerarguedthattheHospitalcouldonlyhave“hadaliability”immediatelybeforeitsderegistrationiftheplaintiffs’negligenceclaimshadbeenestablishedbeforethatdate.Asthoseclaimshadnotyetbeendetermined,theHospitalcouldnotbesaidtohave“hadaliability”immediatelybeforeitsderegistrationin2005.Thedoctorsdisagreed.TheysubmittedthatthefactthattheplaintiffshadnotobtainedjudgmentagainstthedoctorspriortothederegistrationofthehospitaldidnotprecludethedoctorsfromrecoveringontheircrossclaimsagainsttheInsurer.Itwouldbesufficientifthedeterminationthataliabilityexistedimmediatelybeforederegistrationweremadeatthefinalhearingoftheproceedings.
16. Judgment provides renewed guidance as to the proper construction of section 601AG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the principles governing claims against the insurer of a deregistered company
54
APPENdIx (II): COURt StAtIStICS –COMPREHENSIVETABLEOFSTATISTICS(to be read in conjunction with Chapter 4)
• Filings, disposals and pending cases• timeliness
– Court of Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeal, Criminal List – age of pending cases at 31 december
– Other lists – waiting times– Listing delays
• Alternative dispute resolutionNOtES:Thefiguresforpendingcasesforeachlistcanincludecasesthathavebeenre-openedafterjudgment,andcasesreferredfromothercasemanagementlists.Forthisreason,pendingcaseloadfiguresdonotalwaysreconcilewithassociatedfilinganddisposalfiguresinthistable.
“n/a” –figuresnotavailableornotseparatelyreported“-“ –itemnotapplicable“0“ –zerocount
FILINGS, dISPOSALS ANd PENdING CASES
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COURt OF APPEAL 1
FilingsAppeals and applications for relief 442 319 377 361 339Applications for leave to appeal 2 285 213 206 185 172Net new cases 3 690 494 564 530 496
DisposalsAppeals and applications for relief 456 402 338 380 368Applications for leave to appeal 320 239 218 196 192Net disposals 4 739 603 537 560 545
Pendingcasesat31DecemberAppeals and applications for relief 336 253 292 273 241Applications for leave to appeal 154 128 116 106 88Total 490 381 408 379 329
1 Thesestatisticsexcludeholdingnoticesofappeal,holdingsummonsesforleavetoappealandnoticesofintentiontoappealbecausethoseformsdonotcommencesubstantiveappealsorapplications.
2 Thisitemalsoincludesapplicationswherepartieshaveelectedtohaveaconcurrenthearingofboththeapplicationforleavetoappealandtheappeal(ifleaveisgranted).
3 Forreportingthenet new cases,whereasummonsforleavetoappealhasbeenfiledandthenanoticeofappealisfiledpursuanttoagrantofleave,thisiscountedasonecontinuouscase(nottwoseparatecases).
4 Forreportingthenetdisposals,whereanappealhasbeenprecededbyagrantofleave,thisiscountedasonecontinuouscaseandadisposaliscountedonlywhenthesubstantiveappealisfinalised.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COURt OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 1
Filings 524 452 441 422 389Disposals 536 501 444 414 391Pendingcasesat31December 229 180 177 185 183
1 From2006onwards,thesestatisticsexcludeappealsfromdecisionsoftheNSWStateParoleAuthority.In2009atotalof5paroledecisionappealswerefiled.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COMMON LAW dIVISION – Criminal 1, 2
Criminal List
Filings3 94 104 133 101 106Disposals4 126 104 115 122 112Pendingcasesat31December 93 93 111 90 84
55
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
bails List 5
Filings 2,715 2,789 2,981 2,765 2,449Disposals 2,709 2,898 2,893 2,716 2,770Pendingcasesat31December 344 235 270 243 304
Summary jurisdiction cases 6
Filings - - 11 237 0Disposals - - 0 0 248Pendingcasesat31December - - 11 248 0
1 Inallyears,thefiguresexcludemattersunderPart7Crimes(AppealandReview)Act(formerlys474DCrimesAct)andapplicationsforre-determinationoflifesentence.
2 From2005onwards,thefiguresarebasedoncountingrulesthatalignwithnationalcountingrulesandarethereforenotdirectlycomparablewithfiguresforearlieryears.
3 Thefiguresincludecommittalsfortrial/sentence,exofficioindictments,re-trialsorderedbytheCourtofCriminalAppealorHighCourt,mattersreferredfromtheMentalHealthReviewTribunal,transfersfromtheDistrictCourt,andre-activatedmatters(egwhereabenchwarrantisexecuted).
4 Disposaliscountedatsentence,acquittalorotherfinaldisposal(previouslyitwascountedatverdict,pleaofguilty,orotherfinaldisposal).“Otherfinaldisposal”includesreferraltotheMentalHealthTribunal,nobill,deathoftheaccused,orderforabenchwarranttoissue,transfertoanothercourt,andotherfinalorders.
5 Atpresent,thefiguresforpendingcasesdonotalwaysreconcilewithassociatedfilingsanddisposalsfigures.Thisisbecausethefiguresforfilings,disposalsandpendingcasesarebeingobtainedfromdisparateinformationsourcesuntiltheJusticeLinksystemcanprovideintegratedreporting.
6 Normally,thefewsummaryjurisdictioncasesthatcometotheCourtareincludedwithcivilcaseswithintheSummonsListoftheCommonLawDivision,wheretheyaremanaged.Thecommencementof248relatedprosecutionsundertheFood Act 2003(againstonecompanyanditstwodirectors)havebeenseparatelyreportedtopreventskewingofthestatisticsintheSummonsList.Notethatthe248casesreportedherewerereportedtotheProductivityCommissionas9casesonly,inaccordancewiththenationalcountingrules.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COMMON LAW dIVISION – Civil 1
Administrative Law List
Filings 116 183 145 150 125Disposals 128 131 195 191 110Pendingcasesat31December 63 121 78 52 74
defamation List
Filings 56 64 61 73 73Disposals 60 74 65 74 89Pendingcasesat31December 90 90 93 99 88
General Case Management List 2
FilingsContested 283 333 271 317 402– personal injury 160 226 169 213 272– other 123 107 102 104 130Uncontested 216 133 128 208 173Total 499 466 399 525 575
DisposalsContested 414 375 442 383 414– personal injury 201 185 228 194 232– other 213 190 214 189 182Uncontested 191 135 92 85 120Total 605 510 534 468 534
Pendingcasesat31DecemberContested 744 784 674 680 770– personal injury 439 451 381 391 443– other 305 333 293 289 327Uncontested 116 77 62 107 105Total 860 861 736 787 875
FILINGS, dISPOSALS ANd PENdING CASES continued
56
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Possession List
FilingsContested 163 190 256 282 286Uncontested 4,710 5,178 5,198 5,190 4,324Total 4,873 5,368 5,454 5,472 4,610
DisposalsContested 124 162 196 224 286Uncontested 3,544 4,986 5,722 5,072 5,145Total 3,668 5,148 5,918 5,296 5,431
Pendingcasesat31DecemberContested 126 136 189 243 220Uncontested 2,411 2,702 2,269 2,498 1,787Total 2,537 2,838 2,458 2,741 2,007
Professional Negligence List
Filings 114 142 152 211 172Disposals 183 162 139 182 185Pendingcasesat31December 354 353 373 418 419
Summons List 3
Filings 560 565 564 571 497Disposals 582 609 531 614 555Pendingcasesat31December 360 331 368 340 293
Miscellaneous applications 4
Filings 456 306 281 314 261Disposals 306 153 162 130 491Pendingcasesat31December 185 233 280 369 50
Related issues cases filed before February 1994 5
Disposals 282 1 - - -Pendingcasesat31December 1 0 - - -
COMMON LAW dIVISION tOtALS – Civil 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Filings 6,674 7,094 7,056 7,316 6,313disposals 5,814 6,788 7,544 6,955 7,395Pending cases at 31 december 4,450 4,827 4,386 4,806 3,806
1 Between17and21December2009theCourtchangedtoanewcaseinformationandmanagementsystem–JusticeLink.ThecaseloadreportingfunctionofJusticeLinkisstillbeingdeveloped,sothedatafor2009weretakenat17December.
2 ThislistwasformerlycalledtheDifferentialCaseManagementList.3 Thefiguresexclude248casesthatarerelatedprosecutionsundertheFood Act 2003–thosecasesarereportedundertheheading‘Summary
jurisdictioncases’withinthecriminalworkloadofthisDivision.4 TheseincludeapplicationsundertheMutualRecognitionAct,Trans-TasmanMutualRecognitionAct,applicationsforproductionorders,requestsfor
servicewithinNSWofdocumentsrelatedtocivilproceedingsbeingconductedoutsideNSW,andapplicationstoenforcejudgmentsgivenoutsideAustralia.Thislistwasauditedduring2009andapproximately350caseswereclosedconsequently.
5 ThesewerecasesagainstDowCorningand3Mwheredamageswereclaimedforpersonalinjuryarisingfromsiliconimplants.ThelastremainingcaseinthisgroupwasfinalisedinJanuary2006.
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
EQUIty dIVISION 1
Admiralty List
Filings 2 2 2 4 22Disposals 2 3 3 4 4Pendingcasesat31December 4 4 3 3 21
Adoptions List 2
Applications 204 154 161 203 220Ordersmade 176 162 167 204 204Pendingcasesat31December 38 30 20 19 35
FILINGS, dISPOSALS ANd PENdING CASES continued
57
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Commercial List
Filings 192 215 249 264 212
Disposals 196 190 251 246 240
Pendingcasesat31December 240 265 263 298 283
Corporations List
Filings 3,134 3,213 3,008 3,150 2,764
Disposals3 2,807 2,775 2,401 2,223 2,201
Pendingcasesat31December 657 643 631 858 686
Protective List 4
Applications 90 705 112 91 75
Disposals 85 626 107 104 73
Pendingapplicationsat31December 15 23 28 15 17
technology and Construction List
Filings 106 98 104 114 115
Disposals 94 93 91 109 109
Pendingcasesat31December 120 125 138 150 163
General List 7
Filings 2,354 2,209 2,187 2,228 1,993
– family provision cases 655 598 624 641 512
– other 1,699 1,611 1,563 1,587 1,481
Disposals8 2,943 3,622 3,205 3,615 3,098
– family provision cases 578 696 594 781 605
– other 2,365 2,926 2,611 2,834 2,493
Pendingcasesat31December 2,933 2,466 2,431 2,037 1,856
– family provision cases 745 626 660 551 459
– other 2,188 1,840 1,771 1,486 1,397
Probate (Contentious Matters) List
Filings 172 166 141 150 125
Disposals 167 166 140 152 123
Pendingcasesat31December 96 96 91 89 92
EQUIty dIVISION tOtALS 9
Filings 6,254 6,127 5,964 6,205 5,526
disposals 10 6,470 7,073 6,365 6,655 6,052
Pending cases at 31 december 4,103 3,652 3,605 3,472 3,153
PRObAtE APPLICAtIONS – UNCONtEStEd 11
Applications received 21,515 22,079 22,673 23,428 22,985
1 Between17and21December2009theCourtchangedtoanewcaseinformationandmanagementsystem–JusticeLink.ThecaseloadreportingfunctionofJusticeLinkisstillbeingdeveloped,sothedatafor2009weretakenat17December–theexceptionsaretheAdoptionsList,ProtectiveListandProbate(ContentiousMatters)List,forwhichthedataweretakenat31December.
2 InthisList,allapplicationstypesarecounted,includinginformationapplications.Asaresultofaudits,the2005figureswererevisedin2006,andthe2008figureswererevisedin2009.
3 TheseareRegistrars’disposalsonly–disposalsbyJudgesandAssociateJudgesareincludedinthetotalfortheGeneralList.Typically,Registrarsfinaliseabout90percentofCorporationsListcases.
4 Applicationsarecountedinsteadof“cases”becausecasesinthisListcanbeofaperpetualnature.Duringtheperiodwhenaperson’saffairsorpropertyaremanagedundertheProtectedEstatesAct,itispossiblethatmorethanoneapplicationwillbemadeinrelationtothatperson.Thedisposalsfigurereferstothenumberofdisposedapplications.Followinganauditin2009,thefiguresfor2008havebeenrevised.
5 Thisfigureisanestimate.6 Thisfigureisanestimate.7 TheRevenueListcasesareincludedwithintheGeneralList.8 ThedisposalsinthislistalsoincludecasesdisposedfromtheCorporationsListbyaJudgeorAssociateJudge.9 Thefiguresfor2005havebeenrevisedfollowinganauditoftheAdoptionsList.10ThedisposalscountingfortheEquityDivisionisnotfullyreliablebecause,forthetwolargestlists,asignificantnumberofcasesarere-opened(but
notcountedasafreshfilings).Consequently,suchmatterscanhavemorethanonedisposalrecordedagainstthem.11ThisincludesallapplicationsfiledintheProbateList.Registrarsdealwithuncontestedapplications.OnlyasmallproportionofProbateListcasesare
contestedandtheyarehandledintheProbate(ContentiousMatters)List.
FILINGS, dISPOSALS ANd PENdING CASES continued
58
tIMELINESS – AGE OF PENdING CASES (Court of Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeal, Criminal List) 1, 2, 3
Number pending (and % of total) National standard 4 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COURt OF APPEAL
Totalnumberofcasespending 490 381 408 379 329
Caseswithin12monthsofage90%
436(89%)
327(86%)
364(89%)
328(87%)
295(90%)
Caseswithin24monthsofage100%
480(98%)
371(97%)
399(98%)
373(98%)
3205
(97%)
COURt OF CRIMINAL APPEAL
Totalnumberofcasespending 229 180 177 185 183
Caseswithin12monthsofage90%
214(93%)
174(97%)
172(97%)
174(94%)
167(91%)
Caseswithin24monthsofage100%
222(97%)
177(98%)
175(99%)
184(99%)
1756
(96%)
COMMON LAW dIVISION – Criminal 7, 8
Totalnumberofdefendantspending 93 93 111 90 84
Caseswithin12monthsofage90%
68(73%)
75(81%)
92(83%)
73(81%)
68(81%)
Caseswithin24monthsofage100%
80(86%)
89(96%)
108(97%)
85(94%)
789
(93%)
1 TheEquityDivisionandthecivilcasesoftheCommonLawDivisionarenotyetincludedinthistablebecausepreciseandtimelyreportingonageofpendingcasesisnotyetavailableinthoseareas.TheJusticeLinksystem,whenfullydelivered,shouldprovidethenecessaryreporting.
2 ForcasesintheCourtofAppealandtheCourtofCriminalAppeal,theageofcasesincludestimetakentodealwithanyassociatedapplicationforleavetoappeal.
3 ThesefiguresincludetheeffectoffactorsoutsidethecontroloftheCourt,suchasthetimetakentocompleterelevantcasesinothercourts,timetakentoprepareessentialreports,andtimeoccupiedbytrialsthatresultinahungjury.
4 Thenationalstandardsaretakenfromthe“backlog”performanceindicatorwithintheCourtAdministrationchapteroftheReport on Government Services (publishedbytheProductivityCommission).Notethatthenationalstandardsapplytodistrict/countycourtsaswellassupremecourtsandtherefore,forcriminalcases,coverabroadrangeofindictmentsandcriminality.MostindictmentspresentedintheCriminalListinthisCourtarefortheoffenceofmurder;othermattersmaybebroughtbeforetheCourtonlywiththeapprovaloftheChiefJusticeandgenerallyinvolvethemostseriouscriminality.
5 Ninecaseswereolderthan24months.Fiveofthoseareparticularlydifficulttoprogress–3ofthemcannotprogressuntildeterminationsaremadeineitherothercourtsorexternalinvestigations;theremaining2havebeencommencedbyapersonincustodywhoishavingdifficultyprogressingthecasesinatimelyway.
6 Eightcaseswereolderthan24months.Oneofthosecontinuestohavedifficultyinbecomingreadyforhearing,beinga‘wholeofcase’referralinvolvingStateandCommonwealthchargesandaself-representedappellant–itrequiresextensivecasepreparationandmanagementtobecomereadyforhearing.Theremaining7caseshavealsobeenproblematicbutarenoweitherheardorsetdownforhearing.
7 ThefiguresexcludemattersunderPart7Crimes(AppealandReview)Act(formerlys474DCrimesAct)andapplicationsforre-determinationofalifesentence.
8 Thefiguresarecomparablefromyeartoyear:thecountingunitisdefendants;disposaliscountedatthetimeofsentence/acquittalorotherfinaldisposal;and,whereatrialcollapsesandnewtrialisordered,thecountingoftheageofthecaseiscalculatedfromthedateofcommittal(notfromthedateoftheorderforthenewtrial).
9 Sixdefendantshadcasesthatwereolderthan24months.Fiveofthoseweretriedforterrorismoffencesinasingletrialwherethevoir-direandtrialtimeextendedover19months–theyweresentencedinFebruary2010.Theremainingcasewasdelayedbyacollapsedtrial–asubsequent6-weektrialhasbeencompleted.
59
tIMELINESS – WAItING tIMES (OthER LIStS)
Median finalisation time 1, 2 (unless otherwise indicated) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
COMMON LAW dIVISION – Criminal
BailsList–rangeduringyear(weeks) 3-6 3-6 2-4 3-6 3-7
COMMON LAW dIVISION – Civil 3
AdministrativeLawList(months) 4.4 4.8 6.3 4.7 4.2DefamationList(months) 12.6 10.9 14.0 12.6 14.6GeneralCaseManagementList(months) 28.8 22.1 21.6 22.4 16.2PossessionList(months) 6.6 6.2 7.5 6.7 7.2ProfessionalNegligenceList(months) 34.2 33.3 24.8 24.0 21.7SummonsList–civilmatters(months) 3.5 2.8 3.5 3.0 2.5SummonsList–proceedsofcrimematters(months) 6.6 10.0 6.3 8.0 9.3Casesproceedingbydefault(months) 4.6 7.6 6.3 5.7 6.0
EQUIty dIVISION 4
AdmiraltyList(months) 17.4 23.5 18.4 17.5 3.1AdoptionsList–usualfinalisationtime(weeks) 2-6 2-6 3-6 1-6 1-3CommercialList(months) 10.1 12.0 9.1 8.8 9.3CorporationsList(months) 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7Probate(ContentiousMatters)List(months) 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.9 5.6ProtectiveList–usualtimefororderstobemade(weeks) 2-4 2-4 2-4 3-11 2-19TechnologyandConstructionList(months) 7.3 7.7 8.1 7.9 9.5GeneralList(months) 9.6 11.1 9.4 8.6 8.8Probateapplications(uncontested)–processingtime5–rangeduringyear(workingdays) 3-28 4 4 4-20 4-31
1 Themedianfinalisationtimereferstothetimebetweencommencementanddisposalforcasesfinalisedduringtheyear.Itisnotanindicatoroffuturewaitingtimeorofentrencheddelay.Whenanunusuallyhighnumberofoldercasesarefinalisedinayear,themedianfinalisationtimemaybesignificantlyhigherthaninotheryears.
2 Medianfinalisationtimesarenotfullyreliableduetolimitationsofthecurrentcomputersystem.Wherecaseshavebeendisposed,butre-openedafterjudgmentandthenre-closed,thefinalisationtimeiscalculatedfromthedateoftheoriginalcommencementtothelatestdisposaldate,resultinginanover-representationofthetimetakentofinalisethesubstantiveissuesbeforetheCourt.
3 For2009themedianhasbeentakenforcasefinalisationtimesrecordeduptoandincluding17December.4 For2009themedianhasbeentakenfromcasefinalisationtimesrecordeduptoandincluding17December,exceptfortheAdoptionsList,the
ProtectiveList,theProbate(ContentiousMatters)Listandtheuncontestedprobateapplications(wherecasefinalisationtimesforthefullyearwereavailable).
5 Thisisthetimefromlodgmenttoposting,whenapplicationsarefullyinorderwhenlodged.Applicationsthatarenotinorderarerequisitioned,andtakelonger.
60
tIMELINESS – LIStING dELAyS At thE ENd OF thE yEAR 1, 2, 3 2007 2008 2009
COURt OF APPEAL4 4months 3.5months 1.5months
COURt OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2months 3months 2.5months
COMMON LAW dIVISION
Criminal List 54-5months 2.5months 3months
Civil lists 63-4months 2.5months 3months
bails List 3-4weeks 6weeks 3weeks
EQUIty dIVISION 7 5-6months 5months 2.5months
1 ThisisthetimebetweentheestablishmentofreadinessforhearingandthefirstgroupofavailablehearingdatesthattheCourtoffersforcriminalandciviltrialcases,criminalandcivilappealsandBailsListcases.ThesedelaysdonotapplyiftheCourtordersanexpeditedhearing.
2 Thelistingdelaysshowthepositionatthestartofthenewlawterm(forexample,for2009itisthepositionatthestartofthe2010lawterm).Thisremovesanyeffectofthelawvacation.
3 ThisisthethirdyearofreportinglistingdelaysintheAnnual Review.4 Thisreferstosubstantiveappeals(includingconcurrenthearings).5 Thisreferstocasesrequiringatleast3weeksofhearingtime.6 Thisreferstocasesrequiringupto5daysofhearingtime.7 ThisrefersonlytoGeneralListandProbate(ContentiousMatters)Listcasesrequiring2ormoredaysofhearingtimebeforeaJudge.
ALtERNAtIVE dISPUtE RESOLUtION
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Court-annexed mediations listed 1, 2
Total 250 286 282 568 666 – Common Law Division 6 12 24 37 68 – Equity Division – not probate cases 229 262 246 518 553 – Equity Division – probate cases 8 7 11 12 36 – Court of Appeal 7 5 1 1 9
Percentageofcasessettlingatmediation3 62% 58% 49% 59% 49%Listingdelay4 8weeks 4weeks 7weeks 6weeks 5weeks
Referrals to mediation generally
Totalreferralsrecorded5 517 487 748 868 1,111
Arbitrations listed
CommonLawDivision 0 1 0 0 0
1 “Court-annexedmediation”referstomediationsconductedbytheRegistrarsoftheCourtwhoarealsoqualifiedasmediators.Itexcludesmediationsconductedbyprivatemediators.
2 Thissectionreferstocourt-annexedmediationlistingsfortheyear–notethatcasesthatarereferredtocourt-annexedmediationverylateinayearmayresultina listingearlyinthefollowingyear.
3 Thisrefersonlytocasesthathavesettledandeitheragreeduponfinalisingordersordraftedheadsofagreementby the close of the mediationprocedure.Itdoesnotincludecasesthatadviseasettlementatanylatertime(eventhoughthemediationmayhavecontributedsignificantlytoreachingthatsettlement).TheRegistrydoesnotcollectsettlementdataformediationsconductedbyprivatemediators.
4 Thisisthedelayuntilthefirstavailablegroupofmediationsessionswithinthecourt-annexedmediationprogram,asreportedatthestartofthenewlawterm(forexample,for2009itisthepositionatthestartofthe2010lawterm).Earliermediationsessionsarearranged,iforderedbytheCourt.
5 ThiscoversalloccasionswhentheCourtrefersacasetomediation,regardlessofwhetherthemediationistobeconductedthroughthecourt-annexedmediationprogramorbyaprivatemediator.
61
Education Committee TheSupremeCourt,inpartnershipwiththeJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWales,providesacontinuingjudicialeducationprogramdesignedtomeetthedifferingneedsofSupremeCourtjudgesandassociatejudges.Theprogramaimsto:
• promotehighstandardsofjudicialperformance• assistinthedevelopmentofappropriatejudicial
skillsandvalues• keepjudgesup-to-datewithcurrentlegal
developmentsandemergingtrends• resultinabetterinformedandprofessional
judiciary.
Sessionsrangefromorientationprogramsfornewappointees,anannualconference,specialistoccasionalseminarsonpracticalmatters,socialawarenessissuesandlegislativechanges.ThefocusineducationforSupremeCourtjudgesisonsentencing,importantlegaldevelopments,improvingknowledgeindifficultareasoflegalpracticeandprocedure,andthedevelopmentofjudicialskills.Alsoofferedisthe360degreefeedbackprogramforjudges.
TheSupremeCourtEducationCommitteedevelopseacheducationprogrambasedontheidentifiedneedsofjudges.Inputregardingtopics,presentersandformatisprovidedbyjudges,otherparticipantsinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice,andcommunityrepresentatives.TheCommitteeiscomposedofjudgesandtheEducationDirectoroftheJudicialCommission.TheChairoftheCommitteeisalsoamemberoftheJudicialCommission’sStandingAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEducation.TheEducationCommitteecirculatedtoalljudgesinAugust2009aninformationcircularregardingtheavailableoptionsforthecontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentofSupremeCourtjudgesinNewSouthWales.ItincludedreferencetotheNationalStandardforJudicialProfessionalDevelopmentandeducationalinitiativesofinterestofSupremeCourtjudges.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeBasten(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeCampbell(fromFebruary)TheHonourableJusticeNicholasTheHonourableJusticeHislop
APPENdIx (III): thE COURt’S COMMIttEES ANd USER GROUPS
Chief Justice’s Policy and Planning CommitteeTheCommitteemeetseachmonthtodeterminestrategicpolicytobeadoptedbytheCourt,particularlyinrelationtolegislative,proceduraloradministrativechangesthatarelikelytoaffecttheCourtanditsusers.ThePolicyandPlanningCommitteeisoneofonlytwoCourtCommitteeswithdecision-makingresponsibilities,theotherbeingtheRuleCommittee.Caseloadmanagementremainedanimportantfocusthroughouttheyear.TheCommitteealsocontinuedtoreviewpolicyandproceduralinitiativessubmittedbytheCourt’sotherCommitteesdetailedinthisAppendix.
Members during 2009TheHonourabletheChiefJustice(Chairperson)TheHonourablethePresidentTheHonourableJusticeBeazleyAOTheHonourableJusticeGilesTheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeBerginSecretary:MsMGreenwood
Rule Committee TheRuleCommitteemeetseachmonthtoconsiderproposedchangestotheSupremeCourtRules1970withaviewtoincreasingtheefficiencyoftheCourt’soperations,andreducingcostanddelayinaccordancewiththerequirementsofaccesstojustice.TheCommitteeisastatutorybodythathasthepowertoalter,addto,orrescindanyoftheRulescontainedin,orcreatedunder,theSupreme Court Act 1970.TheCommittee’smembershipisdefinedinsection123oftheAct,andincludesrepresentativesfromeachDivisionoftheCourtandkeyorganisationswithinthelegalprofession.
Members during 2009TheHonourabletheChiefJustice(Chairperson)TheHonourablethePresidentTheHonourableJusticeHodgsonTheHonourableMrJusticeJamesTheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeHallTheHonourableJusticeReinMrGeoffLindsaySC(NSWBarAssociation)MsARose(LawSocietyofNSW;untilJune)MrSWestgarth(LawSocietyofNSW;fromJuly)Secretary:MrSJuppAdvisingOfficer:SeniorDeputyRegistrarFlaskas
62
TheHonourableJusticeGzell(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeLathamTheHonourableJusticeSlattery(fromJuly)TheHonourableAssociateJusticeMacreadyMsMGreenwoodMrNSanderson-GoughMrWCellich(InformationServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MrJMahon(InformationServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsKDuke(InformationServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MrDLane(InformationServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsAMcNicol(LawCourtsLibrary)MrGWalker(ReportingServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsEWalsham(ReportingServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsSThambyrajah(Secretary)
Alternative dispute Resolution Steering Committee TheAlternativeDisputeResolution(ADR)SteeringCommitteemeetstodiscusstheCourt’sADRprocessesandconsiderwaysinwhichtheymightbeimproved.TheCommitteeworkstoencouragetheuseofADR(particularlymediation)insolvingdisputes,andtoensuretheCourthasadequateinfrastructuretoprovidethisservice.TheCommitteemakesrecommendationstotheChiefJusticeinpursuitoftheseobjectives,consultingwithothercourtsandexternalorganisationswhereappropriate.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeBergin(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeCampbell(untilMarch)TheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeHislopTheHonourableJusticeHallTheHonourableJusticeLathamTheHonourableJusticeWard(fromMarch)TheHonourableAssociateJusticeHarrisonMsMGreenwoodMsLWaltonMsMWalkerMsGDaleyMsJHighet(Secretary)
TheHonourableJusticeHoebenAMRFD(fromFebruary)
TheHonourableJusticeJohnsonTheHonourableJusticeHarrison(fromAugust)TheHonourableJusticeFullertonTheHonourableJusticeSchmidt(fromAugust)MsMGreenwoodSecretary:MsRWindeler(JudicialCommission
ofNSW)
building Committee TheCommitteemeetsapproximatelyeverytwomonthstodiscussmattersaffectingthebuildingswithintheDarlinghurstandKingStreetcourtcomplexes,andtheLawCourtsBuildinginPhillipStreet.TheCommitteesubmitsrecommendationstotheChiefJusticethroughthePolicyandPlanningCommitteeconcerningmaintenanceandrestorationwork,includingthedesiredoutcomefromthework.TheCommitteealsoidentifiesfacilitiesthatarerequiredtosupportcourtroomoperationsandtheneedsofCourtusers.TherefurbishmentoftheLawCourtsBuildingandtheongoingrefurbishmentoftheKingStreetCourtComplexremainedtheCommittee’sprimaryconcernsduring2009.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcDougall(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeGilesTheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeBreretonTheHonourableJusticePriceMsMGreenwoodMrNSanderson-GoughMrKMarshall(Director,AssetManagementBranch,
DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)Secretary:MrJGrant
Information technology Committee TheInformationTechnologyCommitteemeetseverytwomonthstoassesstheinformationtechnologyneedsofjudicialofficersandtheirstaff,andtoreviewtheimplementationofITservices.Duringtheyear,theCommitteediscussedmeasurestoincreasetheeffectivenessoftheremoteaccesssystem.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcCollAOTheHonourableJusticeEinstein
63
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeAllsop(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeBerginMsMGreenwoodMsAMcNicol(LibraryServices)MsSRamsay(LibraryServices)
Court of Appeal Users’ Group TheGroupwasestablishedin1999andconsistsofrepresentativesfromthelegalprofessionnominatedbytheBarAssociationandtheLawSociety.TheGroupmeetswiththePresidenttwiceayearandprovidesuserswithanopportunitytoshareideasandraiseconcernsabouttheCourtofAppeal’soperations.TheGroupdidnotmeetin2009.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeAllsop(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeBeazleyAOMrPSchellMrJMaconachieQCMrDDaviesSCMrJGleesonSCMrNMavrakisMrTAbbottMrBMoroneyMrMPoldenMsKFitzgerald
Court of Criminal Appeal/Crime User Group ThejointCourtofCriminalAppeal/CrimeUserGroupwasestablishedin2004topromoteeffectivecommunicationbetweentheCourtandkeyusers.TheGroupfocusesonensuringthatCourtofCriminalAppealproceduresworkeffectivelywithintherequiredtimeframes.TheGroupdidnotmeetin2009.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcClellan(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeBarr(toMarch)MsGDrennanMsPOlsoen(DistrictCourtofNSW)MsJChin(DistrictCourtofNSW)MrMIeraceSC(PublicDefendersOffice)MrBSandland(LegalAidCommissionofNSW)MsACoultas-Roberts(LegalAidCommissionof
NSW)
Jury task Force TheTaskForcewasformedbytheChiefJusticein1992toexamineandreportonmattersrelatingtothewelfareandwellbeingofjurors.TheTaskForcemeetseverymonthtodiscussissuesaffectingjuriesandjuryservicereferredtoitbytheChiefJustice,aheadofjurisdiction,ortheAttorneyGeneral.Itmonitorsareasofpolicyconcerningjurorswithdisabilities,theSheriff’spowertodisclosetheidentityofajurorintheeventofjurytampering,andexemptionsfromjuryservice.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeBuddin(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeFullertonTheHonourableJusticeRAHulme(fromApril)HerHonourJudgeHock(DistrictCourt)HisHonourJudgeCharteris(DistrictCourt)MrMLaceyMrCAllen(SheriffofNSW)MrRKruit(RegionalManager,OfficeoftheSheriff)MsLAnamourlis(Manager,JuryServices,Officeof
theSheriff)MsSHuer(ChiefSuperintendent,Officeofthe
Sheriff;fromOctober)MsPMusgrave(Director,LegislationandPolicy
Division,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)
MsKLeah(SeniorPolicyOfficer,LegislationandPolicyDivision,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral;fromFebruary)
MrMSavarty(SeniorPolicyOfficer,LegislationandPolicyDivision,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral;fromApril)
MrKMarshall(Director,AssetManagementBranch,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral;toAugust)
MrAAndjic(AssetManagementBranch,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)
Secretary:MsLJennings
Library Committee TheSupremeCourtLibraryCommitteemeetsasrequiredtoprovideadviceonthemanagementoftheJudges’ChambersCollectionsandSupremeCourtFloorCollections.TheCommitteemetoncein2009.
64
Equity Liaison Group ThisGroupwasestablishedin2001topromotediscoursebetweenthelegalprofessionandrepresentativesoftheEquityDivisionuponmattersofinterestandimportancetotheoperationoftheDivision.TheGroupisinformalandthemeetingsfacilitatecandiddiscussionsabouttheoperationsoftheDivision.TypicallythesediscussionsencouragecooperationbetweenthejudgesandlegalprofessionindevelopingsuggestedimprovementstotheDivision’soperations.
Members during 2009TheHonourableMrJusticeYoungAO(Presiding
MemberuntilMarch)TheHonourableJusticeBergin(PresidingMember
fromMarch)TheHonourableJusticeForster(fromMay)MsLWalton
Legal profession representativesMrRGForsterSC(untilMay)MrC(Robert)NewlindsSCMrRHarperSCMsJANeedhamSCMrGASirtesSCMsPRyanMsVWhittakerMrMAshhurstMrMCondonMsAKennedyMrJMartinMrBMillerMsPSuttorMrSWestgarth
Corporations List Users’ Group TheGrouppromotesopenandregulardiscussionbetweenjudicialofficersandlegalpractitionersregardingtheCorporationsList,andassistsinensuringthattheListisconductedinafairandefficientmanner.TheGroupmetthreetimesduring2009toconsideranddiscussvariousissuesconcerningtheCourt’sworkincorporationsmattersincludingCourtprocedures,listingarrangements,andapplicationoftheCorporationsRules.
MrDArnottSC(CrownProsecutorNSW)MsDKelly(OfficeoftheSolicitorforPublic
ProsecutionsNSW)MrMDay(OfficeoftheSolicitorforPublic
ProsecutionsNSW)MsEMcKenzie(OfficeofCommonwealthDirector
ofPublicProsecutions)MrSOdgersSC(NSWBarAssociation)MrDGiddy(LawSocietyofNSW)MsESkinner(AboriginalLegalServices)MsEWalsham(ReportingServicesBranch,
DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)
Common Law Civil Users’ Committee TheCommitteeprovidesaforumfordiscussingandaddressingmattersofconcernorinterestintheadministrationoftheCommonLawDivision’sciviltrialworkload.TheCommitteemetthreetimesduringtheyeartodiscussmattersincluding:caseloadmanagement;listingpracticeanddelays;specialistlists;juryissues,andregionalhearings.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcClellan(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeHallMsMGreenwoodMsJAtkinsonMrCBradford
Legal profession representativesMrPDeakinQCMsASullivanMrTHewittSCMsLMcFeeMsCLazzarottoMsSFernandez
Professional Negligence List User Group TheGroupmeetsasrequiredtodiscussissuesrelevanttotheadministrationandoperationoftheList.TheGroupconvenesasrequiredanddidnotmeetin2009.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeHislop(Chairperson)MrIButcherMrDMunroMrTSternMsAWalshMsJTully
65
MrTFBathurstQCMsEACollinsMrLVGylesMrNCHutleySCMrJCKellySCMrGCLindsaySCMrRBMacfarlanQCMrGTMillerQCMsEMOlssonSCMsRRanaMrSDRobbQCMrMGRudgeSCMrRMSmithSC
SolicitorsMrJDooleyMrRJDrinnanMrRKHeinrichMsLEJohnsonMrRGJohnstonMrPJKeelMrHDKellerMrBPKermondMrDJKempMrSHKlotzMrGAMcClellanMrSAMcDonaldMrBMillerMsNKNyghMrJPaganMsMAPaveyMsRSPersaudMrRWSchafferMrGSUlmanMrMWWatsonMrSDWestgarth
Possession List Users’ Group ThePossessionListUsersGroupwasestablishedin2006.ThePossessionListisnumericallythelargestlistintheCommonLawDivisionoftheCourtandinvolvesclaimsforpossessionoflandfollowingmortgagedefault.TheGroupcomprisesrepresentativesfromarangeoflawfirmswhoregularlyappearforplaintiffsintheListandorganisations(LegalAidNSW,theConsumerCreditLegalCentreandRedfernLegalCentre)whoprovidelegalassistancetothoseexperiencing
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeAustin(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeBarrett(Secretary)ThejudicialofficersoftheEquityDivisionMsJAtkinsonMsLWaltonMrAMusgrave
Legal profession representativesMrC(Robert)NewlindsSCMrMBOakesSCMrSGolledge(fromSeptember)MrGCussenMrMHayterMrJJohnsonMsLJohnsonMrDMcCrostieMsMO’BrienMrJThomsonMrMHughes
Other membersMsGHayden(AustralianSecuritiesandInvestments
Commission)MsDNorth(InsolvencyPractitionersAssociationof
Australia)MrMMurray(InsolvencyPractitioners’Association
ofAustralia)
Commercial List Users’ Group TheGroupprovidesaforumfordiscussionamongsttheCommercialListJudgesandlegalpractitionerswhopractiseintheCommercialListandtheTechnologyandConstructionList(theLists).TheGroupmeetstodiscussvariousissuesconcerningtheadministrationoftheLists,includingmattersofprocedureandpracticeinrelationtotheListsandthepotentialforrevisionofthepracticetoensurethattheListsoperateasefficientlyaspossible.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeCliffordEinsteinTheHonourableJusticeMcDougallTheHonourableJusticeHammerschlag(ListJudge
fromMarch)
Legal profession representatives
BarristersMrTAlexisSCMrMAAshhurst
66
Members during 2009TheHonourableMrJusticeWindeyerAMRFDEDMsMGreenwoodMrJFinlayProfessorRCroucher(MacquarieUniversity,
representingNSWlawschools)MsREdenborough(PerpetualTrusteeCompany,
representingcorporatetrustees)MrRNeal(LawSocietyofNSW)MrPWhitehead(PublicTrusteeNSW)MrMWillmott(NSWBarAssociation)Secretary:MrPStuddert
Media Consultation Group TheMediaConsultationGroupwasestablishedin2002topromoteopendiscussionbetweenkeyrepresentativesfromthecourts,legalprofessionandmedia.TheaimoftheGroupistoidentifyissuesaffectingthereportingofcourtproceedingsbythemedia.SomeoftheissuesconsideredbytheGroupincludedaccesstocourtrecordsandtheimplicationsforthemediawhenasuppressionornon-publicationorderisissued.TheGroupmeetsonaneedsbasisandmetthreetimesduring2009.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcCollAO(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeKirbyTheHonourableJusticeNicholasMsSZadel(PublicInformationOfficer,NSW
superiorcourts)MsKDouglass(PublicInformationOfficer,NSW
superiorcourts)MrNCowderyQC(NSWDirectorofPublic
Prosecutions)MrMIeraceSC(SeniorPublicDefender)MsMScheikowski(AustralianAssociatedPress)MsJWells(AustralianBroadcastingCorporation)MrMMartin(ABCLegal)MsESmith(MacquarieRadioNetwork)MsGJacobsen(SydneyMorningHerald)MsSMoran(TheAustralian)MsMJacobs(FinancialReview)MsLCummings(DailyTelegraph)MrLJeloscek(SevenNetwork)MsACooper(ODPPPublicInformationOfficer)
problemswithdebt.TheGroupdoesnothaveappointedmembers.Rather,representativesfromthosefirmsandorganisationsattendandprovidearangeofviewsonrelevantissues.TheGroup’sprimaryobjectivesaretoencouragefrankdiscussionconcerningissuesaffectingtherunningoftheList,toidentifyhowproblemsmightbeovercomeandtoimprovecourtprocessestoassistpartiesinthisclassofproceedings.TheGroupmetonfouroccasionsin2009.
Membership during 2009:TheHonourableJusticeJohnson(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeDaviesMsJAtkinsonMrCBradfordMrKBreen
Apartfromthoselistedabove,personswhoattendedmeetingsregularlyduring2009includedthefollowing:
MsKCooper(Bransgroves)MsRDaher(Bransgroves)MrCHudson(Gadens)MsAKelly(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)MsKLane(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)MsSLever(HenryDavisYork)MrDMcMillan(LegalAidNSW)MrJMoratelli(LegalAidNSW)MsFParker(HenryDavisYork)MsNPetrou(RedfernLegalCentre)MsJPike(DibbsAbbottStillman)MrTSherrard(Gadens)MrSStierli(Hicksons)MsSWinfield(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)
Probate Users’ Group TheGroupmeetsregularlytodiscussmattersconcerningtheoperationoftheCourt’sProbatework.TheGroupconsidersimprovementstopracticesandprocessesandmakesrecommendationstotheRuleCommitteewhenappropriate.TheGroupalsodiscussesspecificissuespertinenttoprobatemattersanddeceasedestatesgenerally.
67
Civil Registry Users’ Group TheCivilRegistryUsers’GroupisamechanismallowingopendiscussionbetweentheCourtandkeyusersregardingthedeliveryofcivilregistryservices.ItwasestablishedtoassisttheCourtinidentifyingandmeetingtheneedsandexpectationsofitsusers.TheGroupmettwicein2009.
Members during 2009MrMLaceyMsFKoleMrNGrayMrRRosman(LawandOrder)MsLAllen(MinterEllison)MsDHowitt(BlakeDawsonWaldron)MsCWilson(Litsupport)MsLAggett(LegalLiaison)MsPTsiattalos(Mallesons)MSmith(Mallesons)MrLRusso(AllensArthurRobinson)JDansinger(AllensArthurRobinson)
Access to Court documents Working Group TheWorkingGroupwasestablishedtoreviewcurrentarrangementsforaccesstocourtdocumentsandmakerecommendationsforchange,asappropriate.
Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeRuthMcCollAO
(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeJohnsonTheHonourableJusticeHarrisonTheHonourableJusticeReinMsMGreenwoodMsKDouglassMsSZadel
Judges’ JusticeLink Committee TheCommitteemeetsweeklytomonitoranddiscussaspectsoftheJusticeLinkprojectspecificallyfromtheSupremeCourt’sperspective.TheCommitteeconsistsofnominatedjudicialrepresentativesfromtheCourtandkeystaffmembersfromtheCourt’sRegistry,theDepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneralandtheJusticeLinkprojectteam.
Members during 2009TheHonourableMrJusticeHamiltonTheHonourableJusticeHowieTheHonourableJusticeGzell(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeLathamTheHonourableJusticeRein(fromMarch)TheHonourableAssociateJusticeMacreadyMsMGreenwoodMsJAtkinsonMrSJupp(PrincipalJusticeLinkDevelopment
Officer)MsNUbrihien(PrincipalCourtsDevelopment
Officer,JusticeLink)
heritage Committee TheCommittee,whichwasestablishedin2002,isanadvisorycommitteetotheChiefJusticeonmattersconcerningtheCourt’sheritage.Itcomprisesservingandretiredjudgesandspecialistsinthefieldsofarchitecture,conservationandhistory.TheCommitteemeetsregularlytodiscusswaysofpreservingandpromotingaspectsoftheCourt’sheritageandhistoryandmakesrecommendationstotheChiefJusticeasrequired.
Members during 2009TheHonourableSimonShellerAOQC(Chairperson)TheHonourableJohnBrysonQCTheHonourablePaulSteinAMTheHonourableBrianSullyQCTheHonourableJusticeNicholasTheHonourableJusticeBreretonRFDTheHonourableAssociateJusticeMcLaughlinMrKMarshall(Director,AssetManagementBranch,
NSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)
MrsMBetteridge(museumconsultant)MsDJones(architecturalconsultant)
68
APPENdIx (IV): OthER JUdICIAL ACtIVIty
Aswellashearinganddeterminingcases,JudgesandAssociateJudgesactivelycontributetotheongoingprofessionaldevelopmentofthelegalcommunitybothdomesticallyandabroad.Theircontributionsextendtoactivitiessuchaspresentingpapersandspeechesatconferencesandseminars,submittingarticlesforpublication,givingoccasionallecturesateducationalinstitutions,meetingjudicialofficersfromcourtsaroundtheworld,andhostingdelegations.ManyJudgesandAssociateJudgesarealsoappointedtoserveonboards,commissions,andcommitteesforwiderangeoflegal,culturalandbenevolentorganisations.
TheJudges’andAssociateJudges’activitiesduring2009aresummarisedbelow.
tHe HOnOurABLe J J SPiGeLmAn AC, CHief JuStiCe Of new SOutH wALeSConferences:
5–9Apr 16thCommonwealthLawConference(HongKong)16May NgaraYuraConference(Rosehill)29–31May QatarLawForum,Doha(Qatar)2–5Jun Indo-AustralianLegalForum(Canberra)28–31Jul HouseofLordsConference(London,UK)11Aug SupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtJudges’Conference(Pokolbin)27Oct InternationalOrganisationforJudicialTrainingConference(Sydney)20Nov RuleofLawAssociationConference(Sydney)27–28Nov InternationalCommercialLitigationConference(Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
2Feb OpeningofLawTermDinner(Sydney)
7AprTheHagueChoiceofCourtConventionandInternationalCommercialLitigation,CommonwealthLawConference(HongKong)
30Apr TheTraditionalityoftheLaw,OfficialaddressattheopeningoftheLawSchool,UniversityofSydney16May AddresstotheNgaraYuraConference
24May Launch–TheWordstoRememberIt:MemoirsofChildHolocaustSurvivorsTheSydneyJewishMuseum
18Jun Launch–CorporateGovernanceandInternationalBusinessLaw,SydneyLawSchool,UniversityofSydney
2Jul Address,ASICLawyersNetwork,MartinPlace(Sydney)
11Aug AddresstotheSupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference,BancoCourt(Sydney)
4SepTheMacquarieBicentennial:AReappraisaloftheBiggeReports,TheAnnualHistoryLecture,HistoryCouncilofNewSouthWales(Sydney)
9SepLaunch–ASocialHistoryofCompanyLaw:GreatBritainandtheAustralianColonies1854-1920byRobMcQueen,BancoCourt(Sydney)
21Sep CaseManagementinNewSouthWales,PaperpreparedforvisitingjudicialdelegationfromIndia(Sydney)
22Oct Launch–DVD“CircleSentencinginNSW”,BancoCourt(Sydney)
27Oct Address–InternationalOrganisationforJudicialTrainingConferenceDinner(Sydney)
13Nov AddressontheRetirementofTheHonourableDavidIppAO,BancoCourt(Sydney)
17–18Nov TheForgottenFreedom:FreedomFromFear,SydneyLawSchool,UniversityofSydney;AustralianAcademyofLaw,2009SymposiumSeries,BancoCourt(Sydney)
Publications:
SpeechoftheHonJJSpigelmanAC,deliveredatthelaunchof“RediscoveringRhetoric:Law,LanguageandthePracticeofPersuasion”(2009)83Australian Law Journal 486APlaceforRhetoric(2009)January-FebruaryQuadrantNo453(VolLIII,No1-2)OpeningofLawTerm(2009)47Law Society Journal62
Australianbusinesslawininternationalperspective:Remarksatabooklaunch(2009)32Australian Bar Review1Cross-borderinsolvency:Co-operationorconflict?(2009)83Australian Law Journal44Implicationsofthecurrenteconomiccrisisfortheadministrationofjustice(2009)18Journal of Judicial Administration 205TheTraditionalityoftheLaw(2009)83Australian Law Journal447TheHagueChoiceofCourtConventionandinternationalcommerciallitigation(2009)83Australian Law Journal 386The Macquarie Bi-Centennial: A Re-appraisal of the Bigge Reports,JJSpigelmanAC,StateLibraryofNSWandTheHistoryCouncilofNSW,Sydney,2009AnImperialcivilservant:reappraisingtheBiggeReports(2009)Summer Insites Issue61
69
delegations and International Assistance:
11Feb VisitbytheRightHonourableMrJusticeRichardMalanjum,ChiefJudgeandtheHonourableJusticeDavidWong,HighCourtofSabah&Sarawak
17FebChinesedelegation,JudicialAccountabilityStudyVisit,ledbyMrJiangHuiling,SeniorJudge,SupremePeople’sCourtofChina
19Feb ChinesedelegationledbyMrZhanJinyun,DeputyInspectorofPeople’sHighCourtofHubeiProvince,China20Feb VisitbyTheRightHonourableTheBaronessScotlandofAsthalPCQC,AttorneyGeneralofEnglandandWales20Apr ProfessorLakshmanMarasinghe,Chairman,SriLankanLawReformCommission22Sep IndianJudicialDelegationledbyTheHonourableShriKGBalakrishnan,ChiefJustice,SupremeCourtofIndia26Nov KoreandelegationledbyJudgeParkByung-Dae,SeniorPresidingJudge,CivilDivision,SeoulDistrictCourt,Korea30Nov KoreandelegationledbyJudgeYangEun-Sang,TongyeongBranchCourt,Korea10Dec VietnamesedelegationledbyTheHonourableTruongHoaBinh,ChiefJustice,SupremePeople’sCourtofVietnam18Dec DelegationfromtheSupremeCourtofKorea
Commissions in Overseas Courts:
2-10Aug Commissioner,CommissionOfInquiry,AntiguaAndBarbuda
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe JAmeS ALLSOP, PreSiDent Of tHe COurt Of APPeALConferences:
16May ConferenceonJudicial/IndigenousIssues(Parramatta,NSW)24Jun DistrictCourtConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)27–28Nov InternationalCommercialLitigationandDisputeResolutionConference(Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
15Apr 2009WilliamTetleyLecture–MaritimeLaw–theNatureandImportanceofitsInternationalCharacter(Tulane,USA)
5MayAustralianAcademyofLaw2009SymposiumSeries–ProfessionalismandCommercialism–conflictorharmonyinmodernlegalpractice?(Sydney,NSW)
29May Q150ConstitutionalConference2009–Queensland’sConstitutionalInheritancefromNewSouthWales(Brisbane,Qld)15Aug ACICA&UniversityofNewSouthWales–MaritimeArbitration,Sydney,NSW19Sep 36thAustralianLegalConvention–AppellateJudgments–TheNeedforClarity(Perth,WA)
17Oct7thAnnualUniversityofSouthAustraliaTradePracticeWorkshop–TheJudicialDispositionofCompetitionCases(Adelaide,SA)
11Nov FederalCourtofAustralia–MarineInsuranceAct1909100thAnniversary(Sydney,NSW)
Publications:
“Queensland’sConstitutionalInheritancefromNSW”Queensland’sConstitution–Past,PresentandFuture(publishedbySupremeCourtofQueenslandLibrary)pp8-44
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
AdjunctProfessor,AustralianMaritimeCollegeandUniversityofSydney
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe m J BeAzLey AOConferences:
24–28Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)4Mar ContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentSeminar,NewSouthWalesBarAssociation6Mar CommercialLitigationSeminar,(Chair)(Sydney)19–20Jun TheLawSocietyofNewSouthWales:SpecialistAccreditationPersonalInjuryLawConference(HunterValley)
Speaking Engagements:
4Mar Paper:Practice and Advocacy in the Court of AppealContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentSeminar,NewSouthWalesBarAssociation
24Apr Speech:NotreDameLawSocietyInauguralLawBall2May Speech:BallinaLawSocietydinner
19JunPaper:Personal Injury Actions: future directionsTheLawSocietyofNewSouthWales:SpecialistAccreditationPersonalInjuryLawConference,HunterValley
25JunSpeech:Much speech is one thing, well-timed speech is anotherAustralianLawyersPhil-HellenicAssociation,Sydney
15SepSpeech:The Model Litigant: failing to be model?GovernmentSolicitorsAnnualDinner
70
16Oct Speech:2009FinalYearDinnerforGraduatingStudentsSydneyUniversityLawSociety
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Chair,NSWChapter,AustralianInstituteAdministrativeLawExecutiveCommitteeMember,JudicialConferenceofAustraliaChair,AdvisoryCommittee,“Equality Before the Law Bench Book”,JudicialCommissionofNewSouthWalesChair,Women’sAdvisoryNetwork,NationalBreastandOvarianCancerCentreMember,BoardofGovernors,QueenwoodSchoolforGirlsMember,AdvisoryBoard,CentreforChildrenandYoungPeople,SouthernCrossUniversityMember,BoardofDirectors,SydneyTalent,UniversityofSydney
Member,AdvisoryBoard,CentenaryInstitutePatron,ToongabbieLegalCentre
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe r D GiLeSConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudge’sConference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,EditorialBoardoftheInsuranceLawJournal
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe DAviD HODGSOn AOConferences:
26–27Mar WorkshopconductedbytheCentreforConsciousness,ANU,onConsciousnessandtheVegetativeState(Canberra,ACT)
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)20Oct SymposiumonAddiction,IdentityandResponsibility(MacquarieUniversity,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
12Mar PhilosophySeminar,RSSS,ANU“Theroleofgestaltsinconsciousdecision-making”(Canberra,ACT).17Mar ANUPhilosophySocietySeminar“TheConway/Kochenfreewilltheorem”(Canberra,ACT)25Mar SeminaratCentreforAppliedPhilosophyandPublicEthics,ANU“Virtuesofretribution”(Canberra,ACT)
5AugSeminaratUniversityofNewSouthWales,commentaryon“Philosophicalfoundationsofneuroscience”(Kensington,NSW)
20OctPapergivenatsymposiumonAddiction,IdentityandResponsibility“Addiction,freewillandcriminalresponsibility”(MacquarieUniversity,NSW)
24Oct DiscussantonABCRadioNationalprogramAllintheMindonAddiction,FreeWillandSelf-control(Sydney)14Nov PapergivenatJuliusStoneInstituteofJurisprudenceconference“Compatibilismandhardsocialconditions”(Sydney)
Publications:
“Criminalresponsibility,freewillandneuroscience”inMurphy,EllisandO’Connor(eds)Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will(Springer2009)“Thelimitsofphysicalism”inMcHenry(ed)Science and the Pursuit of Wisdom(OntosVerlag2009)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Part-timeCommissioner,NSWLawReformCommissionSupremeCourtRepresentativeontheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofNewSouthWales
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe murrAy tOBiAS Am rfD Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
ChairoftheLegalProfessionAdmissionBoard
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe rS mCCOLL AOConferences:
24–28Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)30Sep–2Oct MediaLawResourceConference(London,UK)9–11Oct JudicialConferenceofAustraliaAnnualColloquium(Melbourne)
71
Speaking Engagements:
17Jan Speech,“Whataboutme–yourPetsandyourWill”YoungLawyersAnimalLawCommittee30Sep “AnAustralianPerspectiveonPrivacyLawDevelopments”MediaLawResourceCentre,LondonConference7Dec Speech,“LaunchoftheAnimalLawToolkit”,Voiceless
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
President,JudicialConferenceofAustraliaChair,NewSouthWalesRhodesScholarshipSelectionCommittee
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe JOHn BAStenConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)25–29Oct 4thInternationalConferenceontheTrainingoftheJudiciary(Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
31MarPaper–Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation and Compensation –AGS/SydneyLawSchoolExcellence in Government Decision-Making Course (Canberra)
Publications:
BookReviewforUNSWLawJournal–“RediscoveringRhetoric–Law,LanguageandthePracticeofPersuasion(FederationPress,2009)JTGleesonandCAHiggins(eds)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Chair,JudicialCommissionofNSWStandingAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEducationMember,UNSWFacultyAdvisoryCouncil
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe mCCLeLLAn, CHief JuDGe At COmmOn LAwConferences:
18–20Jan AsiaPacificJudicialReformForum(Singapore)26Mar NSWStateLegalConference(Sydney)27Mar CollaborativeProfessionals(NSW)Inc(Sydney)20Mar NationalJudicialOrientationProgram–ExpertEvidence(Melbourne)12–19Jun LecturetojudgesandpractitionersoncontemporaryAustralianciviljusticeprocesses(Malaysia)2Oct JudicialCollegeofVictoriaEmergingIssuesinExpertEvidence(Melbourne)11–16Oct NationalJudicialCollege–CivilEvidenceSeminar(BeijingandShanghai)13Nov NationalJudicialOrientationProgram–ExpertEvidence(Adelaide)20Nov 7thAnnualJuryResearch&PracticeConferencepresentedbyTheJusticeResearchGroup,UniversityofWestern
Sydney–“ImplementingJuryReform”–ParliamentHouse(Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
19–21Jan Asia-PacificJudicialReformForum–Roundtablemeeting“Important Issues for APJRF”(Singapore)25Feb AustralianAcademyofForensicSciences–PlenarySession(Sydney)
26MarKeynoteAddress–NSWStateLegalConference–LiabilityinHealthCareSessions–Litigation – Some Contemporary Issues” (Sydney)
27MarCollaborativeProfessionals(NSW)Inc–joinapanelofmembersofthejudiciarytotalkattheconferenceabouttheroleofalternatedisputeresolution
29AprOfficiallaunchtheAsia-PacificCentreforComplexRealPropertyRightsatUniversityofTechnology–A Discussion on Property Rights-( Sydney)
12–19Jun Malaysia–expertevidence;judgmentwriting
Aug Concurrentevidence–Hunt&Hunt(Sydney)
2Oct JudicialCollegeofVictoria,“Admissibility of Expert Evidence under the Uniform Evidence Act” (Melbourne)
11–16OctNationalJudicialCollegeofChina“Administrative Law; Expert Evidence”; “Evidence in Civil Proceedings: an Australian perspective on documentary and electronic evidence; Judicial notice (Beijing).
4Nov Defamation Seminar “Eloquence&Reasonarejuriesappropriatefordefamationtrials?”(Sydney)
20Nov WelcomeAddress:JuryResearch&PracticeConference(Sydney)
7Dec ConcurrentevidenceseminarwithJusticeHoeben–SupremeCourtofNSW(Sydney)10Dec PaulSteinConference:Environment Crime in context: FromISPCC v Caltexto date (Sydney)
72
Publications:
“AreJuriesNecessary?TheRoleofjuriesindefamationtrials”JournaloftheAustralianLawyersAlliancePrecedent–(May/June2009)Issue92Sworntogether–adiscussionofconcurrentevidencePrecedent“UniformDefamationAct2005”Gazette of Law & Journalism
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,AustralianAcademyofForensicSciencesMember,AustralianPacificJudicialReformForumSteeringCommittee
delegations and International Assistance:
17Feb SupremePeople’sCourtofChina–AustralianHumanRightsCommission–JudicialAccountabilityStudy
17Mar Thaijudges’delegation–expertevidence/trialprocess
25May NepaleseCriminalLawReform&RealignmentTaskforce
20Jul Shanghaijudges’delegation22Sep Indianjudges’delegation28Oct DelegationofJapaneseattorneysatlaw–concurrentevidenceNov DelegationofJapaneseattorneysatlaw–concurrentevidence30Nov KoreanJudicialdelegation10Dec Vietnamesejudges’delegation
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe SimPSOn Conferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
11–16OctNationalJudicialCollegeofChina“Administrative Law; Expert Evidence”;“Evidence in Civil Proceedings: an Australian perspective on documentary and electronic evidence; Judicial notice”(Beijing,China)
11–16Oct NationalJudicialCollege–CivilEvidenceSeminar(BeijingandShanghai,China)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,LegalProfessionAdmissionBoardExaminationsCommittee
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe Peter HiDDen Am Conferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)27Nov PresidingJudgeoftheLawSocietyMockTrialCompetition(WesleyCentre,Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
3Sep NewSouthWales2009LitigationSkillsForum,“Practical advice concerning the presentation of evidence” (Sydney)
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe CLiffOrD einSteinConferences:
25–29Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)9–11Jun AustralasianHighTechCrimeConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
10Mar BuildingandConstructionSeminar–chairmanandopeningaddress.“Reflections on the Commercial List as at the commencement of 2009”
14Jul–11AugNSWYoungLawyersCivilLitigationEssayCompetitionandPresentationofPrizes–Judgeandkeynoteaddress,“I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter”, Blaise Pascal, “Lettres provinciales”, letter 16,1657”,
2–3Sep LexisNexis2009LitigationSkillsForum,keynoteaddress,“A forensic expert, like other experts, should not be like a “frog under the coconut shell’ [HarcharanSingTaraMalaysia[2006]5MLJxivi;[2006]5MLJA46]–ExpertOpinionEvidence
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe kirBySpeaking Engagements:
28May CastlecragConservationSociety
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,SupremeCourtMediaConsultationGroup
73
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe r P AuStinConferences:
11Aug SupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
31Jul WelcomingRemarksonCurrentIssuesinInsolvency,CommercialLawAssociationConference(Sydney)11Aug An Introduction to the Conference Themes(withassistancefromAaronRathmell)andPrefacetomonographofThe
SupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference:DirectorsinTroubledTimes(Sydney)
Publications:
Co-author,Ford’s Principles of Corporations Law (LexisNexis,14thedandlooseleaf)withIMRamsay
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
ChallisLecturerinCorporateLaw,UniversityofSydney(MasterofLawsdegreecoursesinTakeovers and Reconstructions andCorporate Fundraising)Member,EditorialBoard,CompanyandSecuritiesLawJournal
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe AntHOny wHeALyConferences:
25–29Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe rOD HOwieConferences:
25–29Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
21Mar NSWYoungLawyersCLE–Criminal Law Update
7MayLandandEnvironmentCourtconference– Criminal Law Update –presentedbyJusticeJohnsonattheConference(Sydney)
1Jul LocalCourtConference–Criminal Law Update (Sydney)21Aug SupremeCourtJudges’Conference–Criminal Law Update (HunterValley,NSW)
Publications:
ConsultingEditorforCriminalLawNews(publishedbyLexisNexis)
Co-authorofCriminalPracticeandProcedure(LexisNexislooseleaf)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Chairman,BenchBookCommittee
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe r i BArrettConferences:
12–14Mar LawCouncilofAustralia2009InsolvencyWorkshop(HamiltonIsland,Qld)20–21Jun EighthJointUNCITRAL/INSOL/WorldBankMultinationalJudicialColloquiumonInsolvency(Vancouver,Canada)23–24Jun INSOLInternationalEighthQuadrennialCongress(Vancouver,Canada)11Aug TheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)11–13Sep LawCouncilofAustralia2009CorporationsLawWorkshop(YarraValley,Vic)
Speaking Engagements:
11Jun InconjunctionwithJusticeEmmettoftheFederalCourtofAustralia,presentedaBarAssociationContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentSeminaronPracticeintheCorporationsLists(Sydney)
20–21JunEighthJointUNCITRAL/INSOL/WorldBankMultinationalJudicialColloquiumonInsolvency.WithJusticeKaneoftheDelhiHighCourtandJusticeMcGowanoftheHighCourtofIreland,ledpaneldiscussion“Reflectionontheneedforjudicialco-operation”(Vancouver,Canada)
31Jul CurrentIssuesinInsolvencyConference,CommercialLawAssociationandUniversityofSydney–ClosingAddress(Sydney)
Publications:
“Thoughtsoncourt-to-courtcommunicationininsolvencycases”InsolvencyLawJournal(2009)Vol17No4page206
74
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe PALmerConferences:
11Aug SupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)13Nov LegalAid:CivilLawConference–MemberofPanelonCapacityIssues(Sydney)25–27Nov PaperforInternationalConference“Architecture&Justice”,“Shaping Justice”(LincolnUniversity,UK)
Speaking Engagements:
5Mar OpeningcommentaryattheUNSW“Wills&EstateAdministrationUpdate”17Jun SpeechattheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,SydneyOfficeConference:“Work/LifeBalance”.27Jun SpeechattheAnnualConferenceoftheBlueMountainsLawSociety:“JudicialEccentricity”11Aug SpeechatBarAssociation’sNewBarristers’Seminar“PresentingOpeningAddresses”.11Aug IntroductiontoProfJenniferHillatSupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference:“DirectorsinTroubledTimes”.19Oct Presentationof8thAnnualSupremeCourtConcert9Nov GuestSpeakerattheLawSocietyWill&EstatesAccreditedSpecialistsAnnualDinner
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
President,ArtsLawCentreofAustraliaChairman,PacificOperaCompanyDirector,ArsMusicaAustralisDirector,SydneyOmegaEnsemble
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe terry BuDDinConferences:
18–19MarNationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia(Melbourne)AttendedmeetingofSteeringCommitteeofNJOPPresenter,SessiononSentencing
12–13NovNationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia(Adelaide)AttendedmeetingofSteeringCommitteeofNJOPPresenter,SessiononSentencing
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,NationalJudicialOrientationProgram,SteeringCommitteeChairperson,JuryTaskforce
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe iAn vitALy GzeLLConferences:
18Feb SocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners(STEP)PresentationbyWALee“Purifying the Dialect of Equity: Some Phrases and Concepts for the Waste Paper Basket”(Sydney)
26MarSTEPPresentationbyChrisCuffe“Prescribed Private Funds (PPFs) – past, present and future … including an overview of Commonwealth Treasury’s proposed Integrity Measures”(Sydney)
22AprSTEPPresentationbyProfessorRosalindCroucher“Quirks and Curios – Lighthearted Reflections on Classic Moments in Succession Law”(Sydney)
25–30Apr TheInternationalAcademyofEstateandTrustlawConference(Cartagena,Colombia)11–13May InternationalSeminarforTaxJudges(Paris,France)
20MaySTEPPresentationbyBrendonLamersandMarkFriezer“Managed Investments Trusts – The New Withholding Tax Regime”(Sydney)
17JunSTEPPresentationbytheHonourableLJPriestleyQC“Anti-Money Laundering – Potential Problems for Australian Lawyers”(Sydney)
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(HunterValley)26Aug STEPPresentationbytheHonourableKeithMasonACQC“Deconstructing Constructive Trusts”(Sydney29Sep STEPPresentationbyTonySlaterQC“Amending a Trust Deed”(Sydney)14Oct STEPPresentationbyProfessionGinoDalPont“The Future of Charity Law in Principle and in Practice”(Sydney)19–21Nov STEPCommitteesandBranchChairsAssembly(London)25Nov STEPPresentationbytheHonourableJusticeBergin,ChiefJudgeinEquity“Executors/Trustees and Mandatory
Mediation”(Sydney)
75
Speaking Engagements:
17Jul Paper–QueenslandBarPracticeCourseFinalAddress“Managing Technology”(Brisbane)22Jul Speech–OpeningofPerthBranchoftheSocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners(STEP)(Perth)7Oct Paper–e-DiscoveryAustralianConference“Controlling the Flow of e-discovered Documents into Evidence” (Sydney)22Oct Paper–e-Discovery&DigitalForensics“Managing Digital Information in Today’s Judicial and Legal Systems”(Singapore)27Nov DinnerSpeech–10thAnniversaryofSTEP(Sydney)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Vice-PresidentWesternPacific,TheInternationalAcademyofEstateandTrustLawMemberofExecutiveCouncilofTheInternationalAcademyofEstateandTrustLawJudiciaryMember,SocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners(STEP)ChairmanSTEPAustralia–SydneyBranchHonoraryLifeMember,TaxationInstituteofAustraliaMember,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral,JusticeLinkSteeringCommitteePatronandLifeMember,RegionalArtsNewSouthWalesHonoraryMember,TaxationCommitteeofBusinessLawSectionofLawCouncilofAustraliaCouncillorofAustralasianInstituteofJudicialAdministration
delegations and International Assistance:
22Sep IndianDelegateledbyChiefJusticeBalakrishnan,SupremeCourt,Delhi
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe w H niCHOLASConferences:
11Aug TheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
17Mar UniversityofNSWCLESeminar:DefamationLawUpdate
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
BoardMember,KimberleyFoundationAustraliaHonoraryCouncillor,RoyalAgriculturalSocietyofNSWTrustee,McGarvieSmithInstituteMember,CourtofArbitrationforSport,OceaniaRegistryMember,SupremeCourtHeritageCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtEducationCommitteeMember,StateRecordsAuthorityofNewSouthWales
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe mCDOuGALLConferences:
23–27Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)23–26Mar CourtoftheFutureNetworkConference(Melbourne)5–9Apr 16thCommonwealthLawConference2009(HongKong)
Speaking Engagements:
5–9Apr “Law, Liberty and Terrorism”(CommonwealthLawConference,HongKong)
11Sep“An examination of the role and content of natural justice in adjudications under construction industry payment legislation”(LEADRAnnualConference,Melbourne)
13Nov “Some thoughts on calling expert evidence”(SydneyCLA)
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe wHiteConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)12–13Sep LawCouncilCorporationsConference(Melbourne)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
ChairofLegalQualificationsCommitteeofLegalProfessionAdmissionBoard
76
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe JOHnSOnConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
7May LandandEnvironmentCourtAnnualConference–“CriminalLawUpdate”(Sydney)(speakingtopaperpreparedbytheHonJusticeHowie)
20OctJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWalestwilightseminar–theMentalHealthLegislationAmendment(ForensicProvisions)Act–(Sydney)(chair)
5Nov AnnualADTMembersConference–“ControllingUnreasonableCross-Examination”(Sydney)(speaker)
21NovTheMotorAccidentsAssessmentService2009Assessors’AnnualConference–“ControllingUnreasonableCross-Examination”(Sydney)(speaker)
22Dec OfficeoftheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsSolicitors’TrainingandDevelopmentDay–“RecentDevelopmentsinSentencing”(Sydney)(speaker)
Publications:
“ControllingUnreasonableCross-Examination”–JudicialOfficers’Bulletin,May2009Co-Author“CriminalPracticeandProcedureNSW”(LexisNexislooseleafservice)
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe StePHen rOtHmAn Am
Conferences:
23–27Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)6–7Feb NationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia–Sentencing2009Conference(Canberra)
19FebNSWJudicialCommission–TwilightSeminar:‘Recent Amendments to the Evidence Act’[MrStephenJOdgersSC](Sydney)
20Feb ConstitutionalLawConference&Dinner(Sydney)16–17May NSWJudicialCommission–NgaraYuraExchangingIdeasConference(Parramatta)29Jun Carroll&O’DeaLawyersLunchtimeSpeakerSeries[TheHon.MichaelKirbyACCMG](Sydney)
1JulNSWSocietyofJewishJurists&LawyersIncLuncheon:‘A mixture of legal issues: Crime, Prisons, Human Rights and Civil Matters’ [TheHon.GregSmithSCMP,ShadowAttorney-GeneralandShadowMinisterforJustice](Sydney)
20AugTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Equitable Estoppel: The House of Lords speaks twice breaking 150 years of silence’[LordNeubergerMR](Sydney)
4SepTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘The Common Law and the Protection of Human Rights’[TheHonChiefJusticeRobertFrench](Sydney)
22SepTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Forum on the Pape Case’[DrNicholasSeddon–BlakeDawson,AssociateProfessorAnneTwomey–UOS,TheHonMurrayGleesonAC](Sydney)
20OctNSWJudicialCommission–MentalHealthLegislationAmendment(ForensicProvisions)ActSeminar[TheHon.GregJamesQC,President,MentalHealthReviewTribunal](Sydney)
22Oct NSWJudicialCommission–LaunchofDVD–CircleSentencinginNSW[ProfessorMickDodson](Sydney)
22OctTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘The Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial review and the Rule of Law’[AssociateProfessorLeightonMcDonarld–ANU](Sydney)
17NovTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Reflections on the Republic and Executive Power: The Evolution of the Winterton Thesis’[AssociateProfessorPeterGerangelos–UOS](Sydney)
19NovTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Protecting human rights in Australia: What is the best course for the future’[ProfessorFrankBrennanSJAO;TheHon.JohnHatzistergosMLC](Sydney)
7Dec NSWJudicialCommission–TwilightSeminar:‘Concurrent Evidence in the Supreme Court’[TheHonourableJusticePeterMcClellan,HonourableJusticeCliffHoebenAMRFD](Sydney)
Speaking Engagements:
3Sep LexisNexisLitigationSkillsConference–Addresson‘Thinking through hearsay during your case preparation’(Sydney)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Director;BoardMemberandChairoftheWorkplaceRelationsCommittee,AssociationofIndependentSchoolsNon-TrusteeGovernor;ExecutiveMemberandMemberofthePlanningCommitteeandStatusCommittee,JewishCommunalAppealHonoraryLifeMember,ExecutiveMember,NSWJewishBoardofDeputiesExecutiveMember,BoardofJewishEducationCo-Chair–AustralianCouncilofJewishSchoolsMember–OrganisingCommitteeoftheJointSupremeCourt/FederalCourtJudges’Conference
77
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe PAuL BreretOn rfDSpeaking Engagements:
28Feb CostsAssessors’AnnualSeminar–“Recent Developments in Costs Assessment” (Sydney)
AugKeynoteaddress–OutdoorRecreationIndustryCouncilofNSW,NovotelHotel,SydneyOlympicPark–“Aspects of Law for Outdoor Educators”
21–23Aug SupremeCourtConference–Commentator–“Expert Witnesses & Concurrent Evidence”–HunterValley3Sep LexisNexis–LitigationSkillsForum–”Cross examining & re-examining a witness”(Sydney)17Sep DepartmentofCommunityServices–LegalOfficers’Conference–“Parens Patriae” (Sydney)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,LawExtensionCommittee,UniversityofSydneyChair,CostsAssessmentUsersGroup,SupremeCourt
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe PriCeConferences:
15–18Jun 18thPacificJudicialConference(Tahiti)
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe DAviD HAmmerSCHLAGConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
20Nov Panel“IstheRuleofLawUnderChallengeinAustralia?”–RuleofLawAssociation,HiltonHotel,Sydney26Nov NSWYoungLawyersDistinguishedSpeakersSeries–BusinessLawCommittee“ExperiencesintheLaw”–NSWLaw
Society,Sydney
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe iAn HArriSOnConferences:
13-15Mar AIJACourtInterpretersconference(Fremantle,WA)5Nov GILDAnnualConference
Speaking Engagements:
7Feb Speaker–TheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationPersonalInjuryConference,Sydney7Mar Speaker–PublicDefenders’CriminalLawConference,TarongaZoo,Sydney22May CommencementspeechtolawgraduatesatUniversityofSydneygraduationceremony
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
SupremeCourtrepresentativeonLegalQualificationsCommitteeSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesrepresentativeonJointCourtsLitigationFunding&InsuranceHarmonisationCommitteeSupremeCourtAccesstoCourtDocumentsWorkingGroup
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe fuLLertOnConferences:
7–8Feb “JudicialReasoning:ArtorScience?”(Canberra)
Speaking Engagements:
19Aug CLESeminarpresentation–LawSocietyofNSW,“Substantive defence – The Case Theory Approach”(Sydney)
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe LuCy mCCALLumConferences:
18Feb STEPLecture(Sydney)16–17May ExchangingIdeasConference(Sydney)21May TwilightSeminaronOnlineResearch(Sydney)11Aug CorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)22Oct LaunchofCircleSentencingDVD
78
Speaking Engagements:
9Mar LecturetoBarReadersre.WrittenSubmissions16Nov OpeningAddresstotheSydneyInstituteofCriminologyandCorrectiveServicesSeminar’Women,Crime,Custodyand
Beyond’(SydneyUniversity)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
MemberoftheAdvisoryBoard,NotreDameUniversityLawSchool
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe n G reinConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Publications:
“OutsidetheConstructionZone–ThreeAspectsofInsuranceLitigationThatDoNotInvolveInterpretationoftheContractofInsurance”,paperpresentedatSupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference,August2009.
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,SupremeCourtRulesCommitteeMember,UniformCivilProcedureRulesCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtAccesstoCourtDocumentsWorkingGroupCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtJusticeLinkCommitteeMember,HarmonisationCommitteeinrelationtovariousmatters,including:(1)HagueConventiononService;(2)InterestRates;(3)SubpoenaRulesAmendment;and(4)FreezingOrdersAmendment
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe wArDConferences:
23–27Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)16–20Mar NewJudges’Conference(Melbourne)27Jul Multi-DoorCourthouseSymposium,(LawCouncilofAustralia)(Representative,SupremeCourtofNSW)(Canberra)24Jun DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral–ADRBlueprintSteeringCommitteemeeting(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)17–18Sep JudgmentDrafting
Speaking Engagements:
28Aug “WomeninLaw”–Women’sCollegeUniversityofSydney27Nov OccasionalAddress,LawGraduationCeremony,UniversityofSydney
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe rOBert ALLAn HuLmeConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)7Sep JuryManagementProgram,NationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia(Adelaide)
Speaking Engagements:
27Nov Admissibility of Tendency and Coincidence Evidence under the uniform Evidence Act(CountyCourt,Victoria)
Publications:
Co-author Criminal Law News,LexisNexisButterworths
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,JuryTaskForceMember,JudicialCommissionofNSWCriminalTrialsBenchBookCommittee
delegations and International Assistance:
19–22DecConsultationwithjudgesofQinghaiProvince,Chinaat14thAsianConsultationonDueProcessIssues,AsianLegalResourceCentre(Bangkok,Thailand)
79
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe m J SLAtteryConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)17–18Sep JudgmentWritingWorkshopattheJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWales(Sydney)8–13Nov NationalJudicialOrientationProgramSunday(Glenelg,SouthAustralia)
Speaking Engagements:
25May Swearing In Speech, SwearinginCeremonyasJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNSW,Banco(Sydney)19Nov Speaker,CityofSydneyLawSocietyAnnualDinner,CastlereaghHotel(Sydney)20Nov SpeakeratNewSouthWalesNavyReserveLegalPanelMessDinner(Sydney)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Member,LawAdmissionsConsultativeCommitteeMember,LegalProfessionAdmissionBoardMember,LegalQualificationsCommitteeMember,IndigenousBarristersTrust–TheMumShirlFund
tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe mOnikA SCHmiDtConferences:
7–14Jan AustralianAccountants&LawyersConference(Aspen,Colorado)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)17–18Sep LogicandLegalReasoninginJudicialDecision-MakingWorkshop(Melbourne)
Speaking Engagements:
7–14Jan AustralianAccountants&LawyersConference“Industrial Relations 2009 – Turbulent Times Ahead?”(Aspen,Colorado)19Sep YoungLawyersNSW“Introduction to Advocacy, How to keep the judges happy”(Sydney)24Sep AnnualIndustrialRelationsCommissionConference“Concurrent Expert Evidence”(Sydney)
tHe HOnOurABLe ASSOCiAte JuStiCe mCLAuGHLinPublications:
“SirCharlesAugustusFitzroy”,TheGovernorsofNewSouthWales(Ed.CluneandTurner),2009,FederationPress,Sydney
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
HonoraryFellow,UniversityofSydney,November2009
tHe HOnOurABLe ASSOCiAte JuStiCe riCHArD mACreADyConferences:
21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)
Speaking Engagements:
23Jul ElectronicDiscovery&DigitalDocumentManagement “Overview and Challenges the Court Faces and Benefits to the Court”,UniversityofNewSouthWales(Sydney)
7Oct JudicialPerspectivesonEDiscovery(Sydney)
Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:
Chairman,CaselawGovernanceCommitteeMember,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral’sJusticeLinkSteeringCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtJudgesJusticeLinkCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtITCommittee
80
Printed on Monza Satin – 55% recycled and 45% FSC paper stock, using vegetable oil based inks and an environmentally friendly alcohol-free printing process. (ecoDesign ecoPrint FSC Cert no. QMI-COC-001113) 81
Supreme Court of New South Wales
Law Courts Building184 Phillip StreetSydney nSw 2000Australia
GPO Box 3Sydney nSw 2001Australia
DX 829 SydneyPhone: + 61 2 9230 8111fax: + 61 2 9230 8628email: [email protected]:www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc