Bhagat v Cowley Hearne Solicitors & Ors S203/1999 [2000] HCATrans 612 (17 October 2000)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S203 of 1999

B e t w e e n -

HARI BHAGAT

Applicant

and

COWLEY HEARNE SOLICITORS

First Respondent

GRANT SMITH

TYNDALL FUNDS MANAGEMENT (NSW) LIMITED

TYNDALL FUNDS MANAGEMENT AUSTRALIA LIMITED

MICHAEL WILKINS

SIR RON BRIERLEY

GARY WEISS

Second to Seventh Respondents

Application for adjournment

McHUGH J

CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON TUESDAY, 17 OCTOBER 2000, AT 2.04 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

________________

MR R.D. WILSON: May it please the Court, I appear for the first respondent. (instructed by Ebsworth & Ebsworth)

MR I.R. PIKE: May it please the Court, I appear for the second to seventh respondents. (instructed by Mallesons Stephen Jaques)

McHUGH J: Yes, would you call the applicant three times outside the Court please?

COURT OFFICER: No response, your Honour.

McHUGH J: Yes, thank you. Yes, Mr Wilson, what is your attitude? You appreciate, I take it, that there has been an application by the applicant for an adjournment of these proceedings on the ground that he is a litigant in person without legal representation and is appearing in the proceedings before Mr Justice Simos, and that he says that he cannot possibly be in two places at the same time.

MR WILSON: Your Honour, we oppose the adjournment. Can I say this? The first we learnt that there was going to be an adjournment application today, following on from the last appearance on 8 September, was when we received communication from this Court recently. But, in any event, I spoke to Mr Bhagat at 1 o'clock today because I say in the list that he has proceedings before Justice Hodgson at the present time, proceedings brought by him against the Australian Securities Commission which started yesterday.

Mr Hutley appears for the Commission in that and I raised it with Mr Hutley yesterday. Mr Hutley raised it with Justice Hodgson this morning, the intent being that if Mr Bhagat had to come to this Court, well then, some accommodation would be made. Mr Bhagat told the court he was not coming today.

McHUGH J: Was not coming here?

MR WILSON: He was not coming here. I then spoke to him outside the court because I wanted to know whether he was coming or not - - -

McHUGH J: Were you aware whether or not any application was made to Justice Hodgson for the proceedings in front of him to be adjourned for 45 minutes or so, so that this application could be heard.

MR WILSON: No application such as that was made at all.

McHUGH J: Yes.

MR WILSON: That is what Mr Hutley told me. So that is the situation, your Honour. We oppose the adjournment application. We cannot point to any prejudice other than the normal prejudice that flows with outstanding applications remaining in abeyance but it is a matter which has been around for some time. It is our submission that the application ought be dismissed.

McHUGH J: Yes. What do you say, Mr Pike?

MR PIKE: We similarly oppose the application for adjournment.

McHUGH J: This application for an adjournment will be refused. The litigant is not here. There is nothing before us which would indicate that an application was made to Justice Hodgson to temporarily adjourn the proceedings so that the applicant could appear before this Court. Indeed, we have been told from the Bar table by Mr Wilson that he has been informed by a senior counsel appearing against the applicant in the proceedings before Justice Hodgson that no application has been made to that learned judge.

In the circumstances, the application for an adjournment is refused and the application for special leave to appeal will go on.

AT 2.08 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED