Dunne v The Astor Pty Ltd & Anor S265/1999 [2000] HCATrans 432 (4 August 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S265 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

ANGELA DUNNE

Applicant

and

THE ASTOR PTY LTD

First Respondent

WALLY PATTERSON

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GLEESON CJ

GAUDRON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 4 AUGUST 2000, AT 12.38 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

MS A. DUNNE appeared in person.

GLEESON CJ: Are you Mrs Dunne?

MS DUNNE: Yes.

GLEESON CJ: Now, what about coming to the middle there because there is microphone. Now, Mrs Dunne, you go ahead and say to us whatever you want to say but can I tell you that we are going to adjourn - - -

MS DUNNE: I know, 20 minutes.

GLEESON CJ: - - - at quarter to 1. No, you have got 20 minutes to speak but you may still be speaking at the adjournment, in which case we will just continue on with what you have to say after lunch. So you go ahead now and I am just warning you that we are going to interrupt you at a quarter to 1.

MRS PAULINE HUANG appeared as interpreter.

MS DUNNE (through interpreter): I do not need that much of time. I only have three points to tell, then I would like to leave my document to you, the Bench to decide.

GLEESON CJ: Go ahead.

MS DUNNE (through interpreter): I have three things to say. One is about myself, another is about the other party and the last one is about court. Today I came here with my whole family, my son and my husband. This is the shirt left by him before his death. He vomited blood. By his deathbed he told me - he asked me to - - -

MS DUNNE: You will have to keep on fighting for me, yes.

MS DUNNE (through interpreter): So today I think of this as the last fight with the Astor Pty Limited.

MS DUNNE: That is why I say goodbye to my husband.

MS DUNNE (through interpreter): That I can say goodbye to my husband and thank you for the Court to give me the opportunity.

The second point is about Astor Pty Limited. They are a very powerful company. That is why they could afford not to even appear in courts. Information brought from the Register is that Mr Kelly SC was the first person who was instructed, legal person instructed to respond, and the second person involved in this case is Mr Wally Patterson. However - - -

MS DUNNE: He have no legal right to represent that for the respondent here now. ..... second respondents ..... This will mean say for first respondents they can do not listen to court at all. Even in the Federal Court there is only second respondent come to court. I give this example - - -

MS DUNNE (through interpreter): This is only an example to show that the attitude and the arrogance - yes, how arrogant they are in dealing this matter. Lastly I want to say a few things about those courts I have been to. Before I started my experience in courts I cherished a great respect for the system. Yes..

MS DUNNE: On my coming court I respect court very much but when I come in this building on level 5 Supreme Court make a decision and say, "Yes, I can do something." After just say no, no reason for dismissed. This all in my book I hand in yesterday and on level 17 - 16 Federal Court, the same thing happen again and judges say, "Yes, ..... the case. Is right court for you, but you are applying for this case and the name is not right because we have got marriage discrimination. You have to get legal otherwise to get proper name. Then after that same thing happened.

When I come here again, okay, no case. Right - wrong court. Name maybe right. Funny thing, come to High Court, the same thing happen. This Registrar she sit there. She told me seven Judges; seven books for you; three for my respondents and one for myself; total 11 books. But now it is not seven Judges. I printed seven for you everywhere. and I think another I would like to say is say - say I have been in many court already, industry court, fight on for give my husband the money back from his company. This is - I had the judgment in..... and local court, Federal Court, Supreme Court, here.

But most I think high class court is the industry court because I judge this as from my respondent. They are .... They only seriously do court case in the industry court. They hand in some affidavit to this - even in this Court I send a notice for discovery to them. They do not do anything, but if they do not answer, say we are argument each other, how can we see clearly the judge, right. That is my opinion. I say maybe this Court is not respect about it too. Not me. I am respect here. I come here. That is all. I finish in my talking to the - - -

GLEESON CJ: Thank you.

MS DUNNE: Thanks.

GLEESON CJ: We will discuss this matter between ourselves and we will adjourn now until 2.00 pm. I would expect that we will be in a position to announce our decision in this matter at 2.00 pm.

MS DUNNE: Will I finish with this today?

MS DUNNE (through interpreter): Do I have to wait until 2 o'clock?

GLEESON CJ: No.

MS DUNNE: I hand in this?

GLEESON CJ: Yes, you hand up those papers and we will look at them.

MS DUNNE: How many, two or seven?

GLEESON CJ: Two. We will read these over the period of the adjournment.

MS DUNNE: Okay.

GLEESON CJ: And then you can please yourself whether you wish to be here at 2.00 pm. We will adjourn until 2.00 pm.

MS DUNNE: Thank you very much.

AT 12.45 PM LUNCHEON ADJOURNMENT

UPON RESUMING AT 2.02 PM:

GLEESON CJ: In this matter the Court is of the view that there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court and the application is dismissed.

AT 2.03 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED