Schokker and ANOR v The Queen P18/1997 [1997] HCATrans 145 (14 May 1997)

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

TOOHEY J

No 18 of 1997

HANK BERNARD SCHOKKER and

JACQUELINE MARY SCHOKKER

and

THE QUEEN

PERTH

10.04 AM, WEDNESDAY 14 MAY 1997

HIS HONOUR: Mr Jones?

MR I.S. JONES: Yes, if your Honour please, I appear on behalf of the respondent to that matter.

HIS HONOUR: Yes.

MR JONES: Your Honour, this is an application for leave to enter a conditional appearance. I wonder whether your Honour has had an opportunity of perusing the papers?

HIS HONOUR: Yes, I have, Mr Jones. I am not entirely convinced that you need leave, in the sense that you appear to be moving in terms of order 11.

MR JONES: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: Which while it speaks of appearances and conditional appearances, seems to me to be more directed to original process, such a writ and for filing of an appearance to a writ. Special leave applications are really dealt with under order 69A.

MR JONES: Yes.

HIS HONOUR: But, if there is any doubt about it I am prepared to make an order to put the matter beyond doubt.

MR JONES: Yes. I think the situation - because the respondent is, in these matters, required to enter an appearance, and given that we did not wish to take the applicant by surprise in relation to our proposals or our submissions, it was thought appropriate to bring this application for leave so that the matter is beyond doubt.

HIS HONOUR: And you are out of time as well, are you?

MR JONES: Well, that may be - - -

HIS HONOUR: That is also not clear to me.

MR JONES: No, that is not clear to myself, your Honour. The position is that there was an original application for special leave coupled with an application for certiorari and prohibition, which was filed on 21 April 1997. And that was served upon the respondent on that day. That application was given action No P19 of 1997. The time for appearance expired on 5 May. And that was the date upon which chamber summons was filed. However, on 30 April an amended application for special leave was filed and served on that day.

And the time for appearance to that, unfortunately it was given a different number as well, being P18 of 1997. The time for appearance to that particular application expires today. So, it is not entirely clear that indeed we do need an extension of time. But, for a more abundant caution, the application is made in the event that both matters are effectively rolled together on that first application made on 21 April.

HIS HONOUR: All right. Well, are you seeking an order in terms of the chamber summons?

MR JONES: Your Honour, yes. A minute of proposed orders has been filed, I understand.

HIS HONOUR: Has it?

MR JONES: And that contains an application for orders that the time be extended and a second order that the respondent have leave to file conditional appearances.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Well, I do not want to tie it to order 11, rule 4(a) - it seems to me that that may not be applicable. So, what I will do Mr Jones is make an order in terms of paragraph 1 of the minute, and cut off paragraph 2 after the word "the Court".

MR JONES: If your Honour pleases.

HIS HONOUR: And there will be an order in those terms.

MR JONES: I am obliged your Honour.

HIS HONOUR: Yes. Thank you. So, just for the record the order is in' terms of paragraph 1 of the minute, and in terms of paragraph 2, terminating with the words "jurisdiction of the Court".

MR JONES: Thank you, your Honour.

AT 10.08 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED

INDEFINITELY