Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd & Anor [2004] HCATrans 271 (6 August 2004)

--

Wilkie v Gordian Runoff Ltd & Anor [2004] HCATrans 271 (6 August 2004)

Last Updated: 20 August 2004

[2004] HCATrans 271

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S241 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

DANIEL WILKIE

Applicant

and

GORDIAN RUNOFF LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS GIO INSURANCE LIMITED)

First Respondent

MARKEL SYNDICATE 702 AT LLOYDS LONDON (FORMERLY KNOWN AS R.E. BROWN SYNDICATE AT LLOYDS LONDON)

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT SYDNEY ON FRIDAY, 6 AUGUST 2004, AT 9.33 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

MR B.W. WALKER, SC: May it please the Court, I appear with my learned friend, MR M.J. LEEMING, for the applicant. (instructed by Speed and Stracey)

MR M.A. PEMBROKE, SC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friend, MR. A.S. BELL, for the respondents. (instructed by Henry Davis York)

GUMMOW J: Mr Walker, there are two procedures. One is an application for expedition and the other one is the special leave application itself.

MR WALKER: Yes, there are some alternatives within the expedition, but yes, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: We have looked at the expedition application and we are in your favour in that respect. On the special leave application itself, that is supported by the other side, is it?

MR WALKER: Yes.

KIRBY J: What would be the extra time, the marginal time, added to the argument in your estimation?

MR WALKER: In my estimation it would be something less than an hour and a half.

KIRBY J: Does Mr Pembroke agree with that?

MR PEMBROKE: I agree with that and I have also established a similar sort of estimate with Mr Bathurst who I believe was involved in the first appeal.

KIRBY J: Is it going to mean that the case goes beyond – I think it was a day case, was it not, before?

MR WALKER: We both say no.

MR PEMBROKE: We all agree that it should not go beyond the day that has been allotted.

MR WALKER: We can, of course, be made to fit it within a day.

GUMMOW J: As Mandy Rice-Davies said, you would, would you not?

KIRBY J: That is very unlike us, though. It is very unlike us to be so hard with time.

MR WALKER: Perhaps some of your brethren, your Honour, will be able to steel your resolve.

GUMMOW J: The draft notice of appeal, at page 53, seems to raise pure issues of construction.

MR WALKER: Yes, and that is the case here.

GUMMOW J: There is a holding appeal, is there, in the New South Wales Court of Appeal?

MR WALKER: A holding summons for leave to appeal, yes.

GUMMOW J: Is that summons in the papers or is it just adverted to in the papers?

MR WALKER: No, I do not think it is your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Does that raise issues other than the construction issue?

MR WALKER: No, it does not.

GUMMOW J: Am I right in thinking there is no federal jurisdiction involved here.

MR WALKER: Yes, you are.

GUMMOW J: I would have thought there was not. So we cannot lift up a pending Supreme Court appeal. Very well, we will grant the expedition of the leave application and in the leave application itself there will be a grant of special leave. We note that the appeal should be linked with and heard on the same occasion as the appeals in the Rich and Silbermann matter. We expect counsel in all three appeals to co-operate as to the division of time on that day. I do not think there is a date given yet, is there?

MR WALKER: Yes, there is.

MR PEMBROKE: On 28 September, your Honour.

MR WALKER: Yes, your Honour.

GUMMOW J: Yes, that is right. Tuesday, the 28^th. Yes, thank you, gentlemen.

KIRBY J: See what I told you, Mr Walker.

MR WALKER: Thank you, your Honour.

AT 9.37 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED