PEGG v The Honourable Justice John Alexander Logan of the Australian Federal Court & Ors [2012] HCATrans 40 (16 February 2012)

Last Updated: 29 March 2012

[2012] HCATrans 040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No B47 of 2011

B e t w e e n -

PEGG

Plaintiff

and

THE HONOURABLE JUSTICE JOHN ALEXANDER LOGAN OF THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL COURT

First Defendant

THE AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL COURT

Second Defendant

THE COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA – AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL POLICE

Third Defendant

Directions hearing

KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 16 FEBRUARY 2012, AT 10.18 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

PEGG appeared in person.

MR R.W. GOTTERSON, QC: If your Honour pleases, I appear for the third defendant. (instructed by DLA Piper Australia)

HER HONOUR: The purpose of today is to simply make some directions about the future conduct of this matter. In that regard, the third defendant – there being submitting appearances for the first and second defendants, I ought to have indicated – has suggested that the application for enlargement of time be dealt with separately and in advance of consideration of the full scale matters in the proceedings. That would be the usual course because you cannot really proceed without the extension of time and so it makes sense to hear that first. So I think that is the course we will take. I cannot think of any reason not to. You have had an opportunity, I take it, to read the submissions for the third defendant and what they have indicated as the issues which would be addressed on an application for extension of time?

PEGG: Yes, I have read that, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: The principal issue is your prospects of success. So, in a way, this will be a mini hearing of the matters that you will need to address. That is a very important matter, the prospects of your success.

PEGG: I understand, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: You need to deal really with the matters raised specifically in the written submissions of the third defendant against you in paragraph 11. I do not mean to confine you to those matters, but they are matters which the third defendant will be relying upon as a factual matter to say that you do not have good prospects of success.

PEGG: I understand that, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: They are not complete because there are questions of law that you would need to argue as well. These questions of fact, I take them to have listed for the benefit of the Court and for your benefit so that you can see what you will need to address in any affidavit material that you put before the Court.

PEGG: I understand that, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: If I then set down a date for hearing and make directions as to times for affidavits and written submissions, how long would you need to put your affidavits together?

PEGG: Your Honour, would a month be - - -

HER HONOUR: One month. Mr Gotterson, you would need time for affidavits in reply?

MR GOTTERSON: Yes, we would, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: How long would you need? Two weeks?

MR GOTTERSON: I think two weeks after the conclusion of theirs, yes.

HER HONOUR: All right. I am just wondering then whether I should allow – I think I should allow the applicant a short time to reply. It does not mean that you have to, but if there is something that crops up in their affidavit material that you have to address, you can address it shortly. I will allow another two weeks after that just so you have sufficient time and you do not feel rushed.

PEGG: Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Then we need time for written submissions. You should start preparing them, in any event, while you are putting your affidavit material on. So I think perhaps a week after that time for reply, which will be some five or six weeks after you file your affidavit. You should be able to put your written submissions on then, I think.

PEGG: Thank you.

HER HONOUR: They do not need to be enormous, but the length of them might depend on how much you want to speak orally in the application before me and how much you want me just to read in what you put in writing, but I am not encouraging you to put 100 pages on.

PEGG: I understand, your Honour. Probably better in writing, I am not that vocal?

HER HONOUR: All right then. Mr Gotterson, if I just allowed another week after that.

MR GOTTERSON: Yes, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: I will read out the dates that I am contemplating and either of you can indicate if you think this is too tight or there is any difficulty with them. The proposed directions are:

1. That the applicant file and serve upon the third defendant any affidavit material upon which he intends to rely in support of his application for an enlargement of time by Thursday, 15 March next.
   
2. That the third defendant file and serve any further affidavit material upon which it intends to rely by Thursday, 29 March next.
   
3. That the applicant file and serve any affidavit material in reply by Thursday, 5 April next.
   
4. That the applicant file and serve his written submissions by Thursday, 12 April next.
   
5. That the third defendant file and serve its written submissions by Thursday, 19 April next.
   

On that basis, I would be looking to set the matter down for the hearing of the application for enlargement of time at 10.15 on 26 April. Now, do any of those dates cause you any difficulty?

PEGG: No, your Honour, it is my birthday.

HER HONOUR: We could shift it, that seems - - -

PEGG: No, that is fine, thank you.

HER HONOUR: No, no, that is just too awful, I think. Anzac Day is the day before. Shall we say then Tuesday, 24 April.

PEGG: Thank you, your Honour.

MR GOTTERSON: I see no difficulty with any of those dates. Thank you, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: I suppose the only problem with that is that the applicant will have only had your written submissions from the Thursday before, so if there is no urgency with the matter, we might just put it over to May to give the applicant sufficient time to come to grips with the submissions. I think we might make it Wednesday, 16 May at 10.15. Are there any further directions required, Mr Gotterson?

MR GOTTERSON: I cannot think of any – just so far as the costs, I suppose.

HER HONOUR: Costs will be reserved to the hearing of the application.

MR GOTTERSON: Nothing else, your Honour.

HER HONOUR: Yes, thank you, Mr Gotterson.

MR GOTTERSON: Thank you.

HER HONOUR: Nothing further?

PEGG: No, your Honour. Thank you.

HER HONOUR: There will be orders in those terms. Thank you.

AT 10.26 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED