Samootin v Shea & Ors [2005] HCATrans 732 (8 September 2005)

--

Samootin v Shea & Ors [2005] HCATrans 732 (8 September 2005)

Last Updated: 26 September 2005

[2005] HCATrans 732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S518 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN

Applicant

and

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE SHEA

First Respondent

PETER JOHN DEANS

Second Respondent

LOAN DESIGN PTY LTD

Third Respondent

S R DEANS PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

M/S GISELLE M. WAGNER

Fifth Respondent

ADRIAN HOLMES

Sixth Respondent

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S519 of 2004

B e t w e e n -

ALEXANDRA SAMOOTIN

Applicant

and

CHRISTOPHER GEORGE SHEA

First Respondent

PETER JOHN DEANS

Second Respondent

LOAN DESIGN PTY LTD

Third Respondent

S R DEANS PTY LTD

Fourth Respondent

GISELLE MONICA WAGNER

Fifth Respondent

Applications for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 8 SEPTEMBER 2005, AT 9.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

HAYNE J: The applicant makes two applications for special leave to appeal. By the first she seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made as long ago as 10 July 2003 dismissing her application for leave to appeal to that Court against orders made by a single judge in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Palmer J) in the one case refusing the applicant an adjournment and in the other refusing her application to join defendants to a proceeding then pending in that Court.

By the second application the applicant seeks special leave to appeal against the order of the Court of Appeal of New South Wales made in fact on 4 July 2004 (but dated 4 July 2003) dismissing her application for leave to appeal to that Court against earlier orders made by Palmer J on 17 October 2002 refusing an adjournment of proceedings.

Because the applicant is unrepresented the applications fall to be dealt with under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. It is convenient to deal with them together. In neither case is there any reason to extend the time within which to make application for special leave. Nor is there any reason to doubt the correctness of the decisions in the courts below. In both cases an appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospect of success.

Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing each application. I publish that disposition

AT 9.25 AM THE MATTERS WERE CONCLUDED