supreme · pdf file• supporting the court: the registry 12 ... 6 other aspects of the...

Supreme Courtof New South Wales

ANNUAL REVIEW 2009

Foreword by Chief Justice of NSW 1

1 2009: An Overview 2• RefurbishmentoftheLawCourtsBuildinginQueensSquare 3• Notablejudgments 3• Courtoperations 3• Educationandpublicinformation 3• ConsultationwithCourtusers 3

2 Court Profile 4• TheCourt’sjurisdictionandDivisions 5• Whomakesthedecisions? 9

-TheJudges 9-Appointmentsandretirements 10-TheAssociateJudges 11-TheRegistrars 11

• SupportingtheCourt:theRegistry 12

3 Caseflow Management 13• Overviewbyjurisdiction 14• RegionalsittingsoftheCourt 19• Alternativedisputeresolution 20

4 Court Operations 21• Overviewofoperationsbyjurisdiction 22

–Timeliness 26 –UseofAlternativeDisputeResolution 28

5 Education and public information 29• Judicialofficereducation 30• Publiceducationprogramme 31• TheroleofthePublicInformationOfficer 32

6 Other Aspects of the Court’s work 33• UniformCivilProcedureRules 34• JusticeLink 34• LawCourtsLibrary 34• AdmissiontotheLegalProfessionand

appointmentofPublicNotaries 35• AdmissionundertheMutualRecognitionActs 37• AdministrationoftheCostsAssessmentScheme 38• ProBonoScheme 38• JudicialAssistanceProgram 38

7 Appendices 39• i.Notablejudgments–summariesofdecisions 40• ii.Courtstatistics–comprehensivetableofstatistics 55• iii.TheCourt’sCommitteesandUserGroups 62• iv.Otherjudicialactivity:Conferences,Speaking 69

Engagements,Publications,AppointmentstoLegalandCulturalOrganisations,DelegationsandInternationalAssistance,andCommissionsinOverseasCourts

CONtENtS

2

ThejudgesoftheCourtareconsciousofthefactthatthispublicconfidenceintheadministrationofjusticecannotbetakenforgrantedandmustbecontinuallyearned,sothatthatconfidenceiscontinuallyreplenished.AReviewofthischaractercannotprovideanythingotherthanageneralindicationoftheextenttowhichtheCourthasperformeditsdutiesinsuchamannerastojustifythehighleveloftrustthatthepublicofNewSouthWalesdisplaysintheoperationsoftheCourt.

Oneofthewaysinwhichthistrusthasbeenearnedduringthecourseofthisyearisbytheparticipationofmembersofthepublicintheentireprocessoftheadministrationofjustice,whetheraslitigants,aswitnesses,orasjurors.EachyearthousandsofcitizensofNewSouthWalesacquiredirectexperienceoftheoperationsoftheCourtinoneoftheseways.

Iamconfidentthat,duringthecourseof2009,theruleoflawwasadministeredbythejudicialofficersoftheCourtwithahighlevelofindependence,impartiality,integrity,efficacyandefficiency.Ihavenodoubtthatthatwillcontinuetobethecase.

JJSpigelmanAC

ThisReviewsetsoutanoverviewofthestructure,organisationandproceduresadoptedbytheCourtforthepurposesofdischargingitsconstitutionalresponsibilitiespursuanttothecommonlawandstatutesofboththeNewSouthWalesandCommonwealthParliaments.TheReviewalsoprovidesinformationoftheCourt’sstewardshipoftheresourcesmadeavailabletoit.

ThefulldetailoftheCourt’scontributiontothepeopleofNewSouthWalesexistsinthelargevolumeofdocumentationproducedbytheCourt–encompassingtensofthousandsofpagesofjudgmentsandhundredsofthousandsofpagesoftranscript.Thebaldfiguresoffilings,disposalsandpendingcaseload,uponwhichthisReviewreportsinsomedetail,doesnotreflecttherichnesswhichiscontainedintheconsiderablevolumeofdocumentationwhichtheCourt’sjudicialofficersandregistrarsgenerateinthecourseoftheyear.

AnindicationofthecontributionmadebytheCourt,andoftheeffectivenessandefficiencyofitsprocedures,canbegleanedfromthisReview,whichcontainsinformationofaquantitativekindabouthowtheCourthasdealtwithitscaseloadandthespeedwithwhichlitigantshavehadtheirdisputesresolved.

However,theprimarymeasureoftheCourt’sperformancemustbequalitative:fidelitytothelawandthefairnessofitsprocessesandoutcomes.ThisReviewsetsoutinshortsummaryafewofthecasesdecidedintheyear2009.Thisisbutasmallsampleofthe2,000orsoseparatesubstantivejudgmentsdeliveredbythejudicialofficersoftheCourt.

FOREWORd by ChIEF JUStICE OF NSW

1

1 2009: An Overview

• refurbishment of the Law Courts Building in Queens Square

• notable judgments

• Court operations

• education and public information

• Consultation with Court users

2

LawDivision,forthefourthconsecutiveyearallcriminaltrialssetdownandreadyforhearingwereabletoproceedbeforeajudge;notrialwas“notreached”.

DetailedanalysisoftheCourt’scaseloadanditsachievementsagainsttimestandardsarefoundinChapter4ofthisReview.ThischaptershouldbereadinconjunctionwiththecomprehensivestatisticaldatainAppendix(ii).

Education and public informationManyjudicialofficersupdatedanddevelopedtheirskillsandknowledgeduringtheyearbyattendingconferences,seminarsandworkshops,someofwhichwerespecificallytailoredtotheCourt’sneeds.ThePublicInformationOfficercontinuedtoprovidethemedia,andconsequentlythegeneralpublic,withreliableinformationaboutcontentiousissuesandcourtproceedings.Duringtheyear,theRegistrarsaddressedover1,000studentsandmembersofthegeneralpublic,givingtheattendeesauniqueinsightintotheCourt’sworkanditsplaceintheState’slegalsystem.ThesearesomeoftheactivitiesfeaturedinChapter5oftheReview.

Consultation with Court usersTheCourtcontinuedtoworkcloselywithitsuserstoimprovesystemsandproceduresthroughanetworkofCommitteesandUserGroups.RepresentativesontheCommitteesandUserGroupsincludejudicialofficers(fromthisCourtandotherjurisdictions),seniorregistrystaffandrepresentativesfromjusticeagenciesandthelegalprofession.AlistoftheCourt’sCommitteesandUserGroupsandtheirmembersduring2009formsAppendix(iii)tothisReview.

Refurbishment of the Law Courts building in Queens SquareInAugust,asignificantmilestonewasreachedinthestagedrefurbishmentoftheLawCourtsBuildingwiththeopeningofthenewcourtroomsonlevel9.TheCourtnowhasalargecourtroomatitsdisposalthatisproperlyequippedtoaccommodatecivillitigationinvolvingmultipleparties.Boththislargecourtroomandthethreeconventionallysizedcourtroomsonlevel9arealsonowbetterequippedtohandletechnologyassociatedwithmodernlitigation,includingvideolinkswithimprovedsoundrecordingandaudiocapabilities,andsuperiorfacilitiesforevidenceplayback.

Thenewcourtroomsonlevel9representthefirstcomprehensiveupgradetotheCourt’sfacilitiessincetheBuilding’sconstructionin1977.Worksofasimilarscalehavealreadycommencedonlevel7and12.Theseworksaredueforcompletioninthelatterhalfof2010andareexpectedtodeliverimprovedfacilitiesforCourtusers.

Notable judgmentsDuring2009,theCourtofAppealhandeddown433judgments,andtheCourtofCriminalAppealdelivered310.Inrespectofitscriminalandciviltrialwork,theCourtdelivered1,477judgmentsatfirstinstance.Somejudgmentswereparticularlynotableeitherfortheircontributionindevelopingthelaw,theirfactualcomplexityorthelevelofpublicinteresttheygenerated.SummariesofaselectionofthesejudgmentsappearinAppendix(i)tothisReview.

Court operationsAvoidanceofexcessivedelayremainsapriorityfortheCourtandsomesignificantpositiveoutcomeswereachievedin2009.TheageofthependingcaseloadsofboththeCourtofAppealandCourtofCriminalAppealwerewithinthenationalstandard,with90%ofpendingcasesagedlessthan12monthsold.ThelistingdelayintheCourtofAppealalsoreducedbytwomonths.In2009,substantiveappealswereheardonaveragewithin1.5monthsfromthedatetheyweredeemedreadyforhearing;bycontrast,in2008,theperiodofdelaywas3.5months.Similarly,thelistingdelaysmeasuredintheGenerallistandProbateListintheEquityDivisionhalvedduringtheyear,fromanaverageof5monthsin2008,to2.5monthsin2009.IntheCommon

3

2 COurt PrOfiLe

• the Court’s jurisdiction and Divisions

• who makes the decisions?

• Supporting the Court: the registry

4

Court of AppealTheCourtofAppealisresponsibleforhearingappealsincivilmattersagainstthedecisionsofthejudicialofficersoftheSupremeCourt,othercourts,commissionsandtribunalswithintheState,asprescribedintheSupreme Court Act 1970.

Court of Criminal AppealTheCourtofCriminalAppealhearsappealsfromcriminalproceedingsintheSupremeCourt,theIndustrialCourt,theLandandEnvironmentCourt,theDistrictCourtandtheDrugCourt.Appealsmaychallengeconvictionsandsentencesimposeduponindictmentorinthetrialcourt’ssummaryjurisdiction,orinterlocutoryordersmadebythetrialcourt.AppealsfromcommittalproceedingsintheLocalCourtmayalsobeheardincertaincircumstances.

SittingsoftheCourtofCriminalAppealareorganisedonarosterbasiswhilsttakingintoaccounttheotherregularjudicialdutiesandcommitmentsoftheJudgeswhoformtheCourt’sbench.TheJudgeswhositintheCourtofCriminalAppealaretheChiefJustice,thePresident,theJudgesoftheCourtofAppeal,theChiefJudgeatCommonLawandJudgesoftheCommonLawDivision.During2009,theCourtofCriminalAppealbenchescomprisedatleasttwoCommonLawjudges,withthepresidingjudgebeingeithertheChiefJustice,thePresident,aJudgeofAppeal,ortheChiefJudgeatCommonLaw.

the Supreme Court of New South Wales: our place in the court systemThecourtsysteminNewSouthWalesisstructuredonahierarchicalbasis.TheSupremeCourtisthesuperiorcourtofrecordinNewSouthWalesand,assuch,hasaninherentjurisdictioninadditiontoitsspecificstatutoryjurisdiction.

TheSupremeCourthasappellateandtrialjurisdictions.Theappellatecourtsarethe:

• CourtofAppeal,and• CourtofCriminalAppeal.

ThetrialworkofthecriminalandciviljurisdictionsisdividedbetweentwoDivisions:

• CommonLawDivision,and• EquityDivision.

Thisstructurefacilitatestheconvenientdespatchofbusinessinaccordancewiththeprovisionsundersection38oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.

Section23oftheSupreme Court Act 1970providestheCourtwithalljurisdictionnecessaryfortheadministrationofjusticeinNewSouthWales.TheSupremeCourthassupervisoryjurisdictionoverothercourtsandtribunalsintheState.TheCourtgenerallyexercisesitssupervisoryjurisdictionthroughitsappellatecourts.

TheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWalesandtheLandandEnvironmentCourtofNewSouthWalesarespecialistcourtsofstatutoryjurisdiction.TheJudgesofthesecourtshavethestatusofSupremeCourtJudges.

TheDistrictCourtofNewSouthWalesisanintermediatecourtwhosejurisdictionisdeterminedbystatute.TheLocalCourtsitsatthebottomofthehierarchyofNewSouthWalescourts,andhasbroadcriminalandciviljurisdictions.TherearealsotribunalsandcommissionsinNewSouthWaleswithstatutorypowerssimilartotheDistrictandLocalCourts.

Figures2.1and2.2overleafillustratethecourthierarchyinNewSouthWalesandthegatewaystoappealinthecriminalandciviljurisdictions.

thE COURt’S JURISdICtION ANd dIVISIONS

5

Common Law divisionTheDivisionhearsbothcriminalandcivilmatters.Thecriminalmattersheardinvolvehomicideoffencesandoffenceswheretheprosecutionseekslifeimprisonment.OthermattersinvolvingseriouscriminalityorthepublicinterestmaybebroughtbeforetheCourtwiththeChiefJustice’sapproval.TheJudgesoftheDivisionalsohearbailapplications,mattersconcerningproceedsofcrime,andpost-convictioninquiries.

TheDivisiondealswithallseriouspersonalinjuryandcontractualactions,inwhichtheCourthasunlimitedjurisdiction.ThecivilbusinessoftheDivisionalsocomprises:

• claimsfordamages;• claimsofprofessionalnegligence;• claimsrelatingtothepossessionofland;• claimsofdefamation;• administrativelawcasesseekingthereviewof

decisionsbygovernmentandadministrativetribunals;and

• appealsfromLocalcourts.

Equity divisionTheEquityDivisionexercisesthetraditionalequityjurisdictiondealingwithclaimsforremediesotherthandamagesandrecoveryofdebts,includingcontractualactions,rightsofproperty,anddisputesrelatingtopartnerships,trusts,anddeceasedestates.TheDivisionhearsapplicationsbroughtundernumerousstatutes,includingtheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth),theSuccession Act 2006,andtheProperty (Relationships) Act 1984.TheDivisionalsohandlesadiverserangeofapplicationsintheareasofAdmiraltylaw,Commerciallaw,TechnologyandConstruction,ProbateandtheCourt’sAdoptionandProtectivejurisdictions.

6

FIGURE2.1NSW COURt SyStEM – CRIMINAL JURISdICtION

Note:TheabovediagramisasimplifiedrepresentationoftheappealprocessinNSW.Actualappealrightsaredeterminedbytherelevantlegislation.

* TheCourtofCriminalAppealmayhearsomeappealsinmattersrelatingtosection32AoftheOccupational Health and Safety Act 2000

** SomeappealsaremadetotheDistrictCourtofNSW.# SomeappealsfromcommittalproceedingsmaybemadetotheCCA.

drug Court of NSW**

Local Courts#

district Court of NSW

Court of Criminal Appeal

high Court of Australia

Land and Environment Court of NSW

Industrial Court of NSW*

Supreme Court of NSW

7

FIGURE2.2NSW COURt SyStEM – CIVIL JURISdICtION

Note:TheabovediagramisasimplifiedrepresentationoftheappealandjudicialreviewprocessinNSW.Actualappealrightsaredeterminedbytherelevantlegislation.

* NoappealliestotheCourtofAppealfromdecisionoftheIndustrialCourtofNSW;however,someproceedingsmaybebroughtbywayofjudicialreview.

** SomeclaimsmayinsteadbemadedirectlytotheCourtofAppealpursuanttoSection48oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.

High Court of Australia

Court of Appeal

Consumer trader and tenancy

tribunal

Administrative decisions tribunal**

Local Court

Land and Environment Court of NSW

Industrial Court of NSW*

Supreme Court of NSW

dust diseases tribunal

GREAt(Government and

related employees Appeal tribunal)

Workers Compensation Commission

district Court of NSW

8

Judges of AppealTheHonourableJusticeMargaretJoanBeazleyAOTheHonourableJusticeRogerDavidGilesTheHonourableJusticeDavidHargravesHodgson

AOTheHonourableJusticeMurrayHerbertTobiasAM

RFDTheHonourableJusticeRuthStephanieMcCollAOTheHonourableJusticeJohnBastenTheHonourableJusticeJosephCharlesCampbellTheHonourableJusticeRobertMacfarlanTheHonourableMrJusticePeterWolstenholme

YoungAO

Chief Judge at Common LawTheHonourableJusticePeterDavidMcClellan

Chief Judge in EquityTheHonourableJusticePatriciaAnneBergin

JudgesTheHonourableMrJusticeMichaelBrianGrove

RFDTheHonourableMrJusticeBruceMeredithJamesTheHonourableMrJusticeRobertShallcrossHulmeTheHonourableJusticeCarolynChalmersSimpsonTheHonourableJusticePeterJohnHiddenAMTheHonourableJusticeCliffordRoyEinsteinTheHonourableJusticeMichaelFrederickAdamsTheHonourableJusticeDavidKirbyTheHonourableJusticeRobertPeterAustinTheHonourableJusticeAnthonyGerardJoseph

WhealyTheHonourableJusticeRoderickNeilHowieTheHonourableJusticeReginaldIanBarrettTheHonourableJusticeGeorgeAlfredPalmerTheHonourableJusticeTerenceLionelBuddinTheHonourableJusticeIanVitalyGzellTheHonourableJusticeWilliamHenricNicholasTheHonourableJusticeRobertCalderMcDougallTheHonourableJusticeJohnDavidHislopTheHonourableJusticeRichardWeeksWhiteTheHonourableJusticeCliftonRalphRussell

HoebenAMRFDTheHonourableJusticePeterAnthonyJohnsonTheHonourableJusticePeterMichaelHallTheHonourableJusticeMeganFayLathamTheHonourableJusticeStephenRothmanAMTheHonourableJusticePaulLeGayBreretonRFDTheHonourableJusticeDerekMichaelPrice

TheJudicialOfficersoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesareitsJudgesandAssociateJudges.TheRegistrarsoftheCourthavelimiteddecision-makingpowers.

the JudgesTheGovernorofNewSouthWalesformallyappointstheJudgesoftheCourtfollowingadecisionbyCabinet.Judicialappointmentsaremadeonthebasisofalegalpractitioner’sintegrity,highleveloflegalskillsandthedepthofhisorherpracticalexperience.

TheGovernorappointsjudgespursuanttosection25oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.Section25specifiesthattheCourtwillinclude:aChiefJustice,aPresidentoftheCourtofAppealandsuchotherJudgesofAppeal,JudgesandAssociateJudges,astheGovernormayappointfromtimetotime.TheGovernorisalsoempoweredtoappointqualifiedpersonsasActingJudgesofAppealorActingJudgeswhentheneedarises.

TheChiefJusticeis,byvirtueofhisoffice,aJudgeofAppeal,andtheseniormemberoftheCourtofAppeal.TheothermembersoftheCourtofAppealarethePresidentandtheotherJudgesofAppeal.TheJudgesoftheCourtareassignedtospecificDivisions,andordinarilyconfinetheiractivitiestothebusinessofthoseDivisions.Incertaincircumstances,theChiefJusticemaycertifythataparticularJudgeshouldactasanadditionalJudgeofAppealincertainproceedingsbeforetheCourtofAppeal.

TheSupreme Court Act 1970alsoprovidesthattheChiefJusticemayappointJudgestoadministeraspecificlistwithintheCommonLaworEquityDivisions.DetailsoftheJudgesassignedtotheselistsin2009canbefoundinthechapterentitledCaseflow Management.

Asat31December2009theJudges,inorderofseniority,wereasfollows:

Chief JusticeTheHonourableJamesJacobSpigelmanAC

PresidentTheHonourableJusticeJamesAllsop

WhO MAkES thE dECISIONS?

9

• TheHonourableJohnPerryHamiltonQC,formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween3Augustand31December;actedasaJudgefor36.5days)

• TheHonourableDavidLoutheanPatten,formerJudgeoftheDistrictCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween9Apriland16November;actedasaJudgefor117days)

• TheHonourableJusticeMonikaSchmidt,aDeputyPresidentoftheIndustrialRelationsCommissionofNewSouthWalesandaMemberoftheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween2Februaryand29May;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor80days)

• TheHonourableRexFosterSmart(actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor137days)

• TheHonourableTimothyJamesStuddertQC,formerjudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor31days)

• TheHonourableBrianJohnMichaelTamberlinQC,formerJudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia(commissioneffectivebetween6Julyand31December;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor32days)

• TheHonourableWilliamVictorWindeyerAMRFDED,formerjudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween17Augustand16October;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor43days)

Appointments• TheHonourableMrJusticePeterWolstoneholme

YoungAOwasappointedaJudgeofAppealon6March2009.

• TheHonourableJusticePatriciaAnneBerginwasappointedChiefJudgeoftheEquityDivisionon6March2009.

• RobertAllanHulmeSCwasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton2March2009.

• RobertGaborForsterwasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton4May2009.

• MichaelJohnSlatterywasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton25May2009.

• DavidLloydDavieswasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton29June2009.

• TheHonourableJusticeMonikaSchmidt,aDeputyPresidentoftheIndustrialRelations

TheHonourableJusticeDavidJacobHammerschlagTheHonourableJusticeIanGordonHarrisonTheHonourableJusticeElizabethLillianFullertonTheHonourableJusticeLucyMcCallumTheHonourableJusticeNigelReinTheHonourableJusticeJulieWardTheHonourableJusticeRobertAllanHulmeTheHonourableJusticeRobertGaborForsterTheHonourableJusticeMichaelJohnSlatteryTheHonourableJusticeDavidLloydDaviesTheHonourableJusticeMonikaSchmidt

Acting JudgesThefollowingpersonsheldcommissionsduring2009.Unlessotherwiseindicated,thejudicialofficer’scommissionwaseffectivefortheentirecalendaryear.

ActingJudgesareaskedtopresideoverspecifichearingsastheneedarises.ThetotalnumberofdayseachpersonactedasaJudgeoftheCourtduring2009isdetailedinbracketsbelow.

Acting Judges and Acting Judges of Appeal (in alphabetical order)• TheHonourableJohnPurdyBrysonQC,former

JudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesandJudgeofAppeal(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppealfor115days)

• TheHonourableKennethRobertHandleyAOQC,formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesandJudgeofAppeal(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppealfor155days)

• TheHonourableJaneHamiltonMathewsAO,formerJudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppealfor114days)

• TheHonourableRonaldSackvilleAOQC,formerJudgeoftheFederalCourtofAustralia(actedasaJudgeandJudgeofAppeal157days)

Acting Judges (in alphabetical order)• TheHonourableGrahamRussellBarr,former

JudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales(commissioneffectivebetween1Octoberand31December;actedasaJudgefor50days)

• TheHonourableBruceMalcolmDebelleQC,formerJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofSouthAustralia(commissioneffectivebetween1Januaryand31August;actedasaJudgeoftheCourtfor32days)

10

alongwithapplicationsrelatingtotheadministrationoftrusts,andcertainprobatematters.

Asat31December2009,theAssociateJudgeswere:

• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeJohnKennedyMcLaughlin;

• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeRichardHughMacready,and

• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeJoanneRuthHarrison.

the RegistrarsRegistrarstotheCourtareappointedundersection120oftheSupreme Court Act 1970pursuanttotheprovisionsofthePublic Sector Management Act 2002.TheChiefJusticemayalsocertifyofficersoftheSupremeCourtorLocalCourtstoactasdeputyregistrarsoftheCourtfromtimetotime.

RegistrarsareallocatedtoworkwithintheCourtofAppeal,theCourtofCriminalAppeal,ortooneoftheCourt’sDivisions.However,theyarepermittedtoworkoutsidetheseboundariesifrequired.

RegistrarsareaffordedlimitedpowersoftheCourtundertheSupreme Court Rules 1970andtheUniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005,andundertakesomeofthefunctionsformerlyperformedbyJudgesandAssociateJudges.

TheworkoftheRegistrarscommonlyincludes:

• defendedapplicationsinrelationtosecurityforcosts,discovery,interrogatories,provisionofparticularsandsubpoenas;

• costsdisputesiftheamountinquestionisunlikelytoexceed$20,000;

• unopposedapplicationsfortheremovalofcasesto,orfrom,theDistrictCourt;

• conductingexaminationsundervariousActs,includingtheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)andtheProceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Cth);

• dealingwithapplicationsforordersundermanyoftheprovisionsoftheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth), suchasthewindingupofcompanies;

• handlingapplicationsasreferredtothembyanAssociateJudge;

• issuingcourtordersandwritsofexecution;and• enteringdefaultjudgments.

CommissionofNewSouthWalesandaMemberoftheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales,wasappointedaJudgeoftheSupremeCourton27July2009.

Retirements• TheHonourableJusticeGrahamRussellBarr

retiredon21March2009.• TheHonourableMrJusticeJohnPerryHamilton

retiredon31March2009.• TheHonourableJusticeDavidAndrewIppAO

retiredon13November2009.

the Associate JudgesTheGovernorappointsAssociateJudgestotheCourtundersection111oftheSupreme Court Act 1970.AssociateJudgesareusuallyassignedtoperformworkwithineithertheEquityorCommonLawDivision,butmaybeaskedtoworkoutsidetheconfinesoftheseDivisionsintheinterestsofflexibility.

TheworkoftheAssociateJudgesgenerallyinvolveshearingapplicationsthatarisebeforetrial,certaintypesoftrialworkandworkonproceedingsthattheCourtofAppealoraJudgemayrefertothem.

Applicationsthatarisebeforetrialinclude:

• applicationsforsummaryjudgment;• applicationsfordismissalofproceedings;• applicationsforextensionsoftimetocommence;• proceedingsundervariousActs;and• applicationsforthereviewofdecisionsof

Registrars.

IntheCommonLawDivision,AssociateJudgesconducttrialsofactionsforpersonalinjuryandpossessionofproperty.AssociateJudgesalsohearothertrials(withoutajury)thatarereferredtothembytheCourtofAppealoraJudge,inadditiontoappealsfromtheLocalCourtandvarioustribunals.TheAssociateJudgesalsohandleappealsagainstthedeterminationsofcostsassessors.

IntheEquityDivision,AssociateJudgesdealwithproceedingsundertheFamily Provision Act 1982andtheProperty (Relationships) Act 1984,andapplicationsforthewindingupofcompaniesundertheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth).Theyalsodealwithinquiriesastodamages,oraccountsreferredtothembytheCourtofAppealorEquityJudges,

11

SUPPORtING thE COURt: thE REGIStRy

the Work of the RegistryTheCourtoperateswiththesupportoftheRegistrythatprovidesadministrativeandclericalsupporttotheCourt.Incivilmatters,theRegistryisresponsiblefor:acceptingdocumentsfiledattheCourt;securingthecustodyofcourtdocumentsincludingexhibitsanddocumentsproducedundersubpoena;listingmattersforhearing;issuingcourtprocess;attendingtotheinformationneedsoftheCourt’susersbyprovidingproceduralguidance;maintainingtheCourt’sphysicalfilesandcomputerrecords,andensuringthatallthenecessaryfacilitiesareavailableforhearings.Incriminalmatters,theRegistryprovidessupportinprocessingcommittals,bailapplications,applicationsunderPart7oftheCrimes (Appeal and Review) Act 2001andCommonLawDivisioncriminalsummaryjurisdictionproceedings.

InrespectoftheCourtofAppeal,theRegistryprovidesspecialistadministrativeandclericalsupporttotheCourtofAppeal’sjudgesandoffersproceduralguidancetolitigantsandtheirrepresentatives.Similarly,incriminalappealmatters,theRegistryprovidessupporttotheCourtofCriminalAppeal’sjudgesandusers,andalsoenforcesordersconcerningthecustodyofprisoners.

how the Registry is managedTheChiefJusticedirectstheprioritiestobepursuedbytheRegistry.Ingeneral,theprioritiesreflectthecentralaimofmeetingtheexpectationsofCourtuserscompetently,efficientlyandprofessionally.

DaytodaymanagementoftheRegistryishandledbytheChiefExecutiveOfficerandPrincipalRegistraroftheCourt.TheChiefExecutiveOfficerisalsoresponsibleforsecuringandmanagingtheresourcestheNSWAttorneyGeneral’sDepartmentprovidetheCourt,providingexecutivesupporttotheCourt’sjudicialofficersanddevelopingstrategiestoimprovethedeliveryofRegistryservices.TheChiefExecutiveOfficerundertakesthesedutiesincloseconsultationwiththeChiefJustice,otherjudicialofficers,theDepartment,andrepresentativesfromkeyprofessionalbodiesandotherCourtusers.

TheSupreme Court Rules 1970anddelegationsundertheCivil Procedure Act 2005permitRegistrarstodirectlyassisttheJudgesincaseflowmanagement.Forinstance,intheCourtofAppeal,theRegistrardealswithmostinterlocutoryapplications,excludingapplicationstostayjudgmentpendinganappeal;intheCommonLawDivision,aRegistrarconductsstatusandfinalconferencesintheGeneralCaseManagementList,andalsoassiststhePossessionListandProfessionalNegligenceListJudges.

TheRegistrarsmayalsobecalledupontomediatecases.During2009,eightoftheCourt’sRegistrarswerequalifiedmediatorsandavailabletoconductmediationsthroughouttheyearonarosteredbasis.

DeputyRegistrarsarerosteredtoactasDutyRegistrarandprovideproceduralassistancetocourtusersintheRegistryeachday.Theyalsoattendtotheissueofcourtorders,writsofexecutionandothermiscellaneousmatters.

Asat31December2009,theRegistrarswereasfollows:

Chief Executive Officer and Principal RegistrarMeganGreenwood

Manager, Court Services and ProthonotaryJenniferAtkinson(acting)

Registrar, Court of AppealPeterSchell

Registrar, Crime and Court of Criminal AppealGabrielleDrennan

Registrar, Common Law Case ManagementChristopherBradford

Registrars in EquityLeonieWaltonAndrewMusgrave(acting)

Registrar in ProbateJonathanFinlay

Senior deputy RegistrarsPaulStuddertNicholasFlaskasJamesHoward

deputy Registrars EmokeDurkinBhaskariSivaSuzinYooStefanoCalabrettaJonathanCottamCarmelLee

12

3 CASefLOw mAnAGement

• Overview by jurisdiction

• regional sittings of the Court

• Alternative dispute resolution

13

Court of AppealNewappealcasesarereviewedforcompetencyand,ifnecessary,referredbacktolegalrepresentativestoeithersubstantiatetheclaimofappealasofrightorseekleavetoappeal.Applicationsforleavetoappealareexaminedtoascertainwhethertheyaresuitableforhearingconcurrentlywiththeargumentonappeal.

AppealsareallocatedadirectionscalloverdatebeforetheRegistrarwhenanoticeofappealisfiled.Atthatcallover,theappealmaybelistedforhearingiftheappellanthasfiledwrittensubmissionsandtheredappealbook.Furthercasemanagementmaybeorderedwithrespecttolengthyorcomplexappeals.

TheRegistrarcase-managesandlistsmostappealsandapplicationsforleavetoappeal,althoughsomecasesmaybereferredtoaJudgeofAppealforspecialcasemanagement.Urgentcasesareexpeditedandcanbeheardatshortnotice,ifappropriate.TheRegistrarintheCourtofAppealalsodealswithmostinterlocutoryapplications,exceptcontestedapplicationstostayjudgmentspendinganappeal,andapplicationsforexpeditedhearing.

Mediationisofferedtopartiesinappealsidentifiedascapableofresolutionbythisprocess.DetailedstatisticsregardingthenumberofmattersreferredtomediationcanbefoundinAppendix(ii).

FormoredetailedinformationaboutcasemanagementpracticesintheCourtofAppeal,pleaserefertoPracticeNoteSCCA1.

Court of Criminal AppealSince1July2002,pre-appealmanagementprocedureshavebeenimplementedforsentenceandconvictionappealstotheCourtofCriminalAppeal.AccusedpersonsmayinitiallylodgeaNoticeofIntentiontoAppeal,withoutspecifyingtheirgroundsofappeal.TheNoticeofIntentiontoAppealallowstheaccusedpersonsixmonths(orsuchlongertimeastheCourtgrants)tofileanactualappeal.Transcriptsandexhibitsarenowprovidedtoaccusedpersonsfreeofchargetofacilitatethepreparationofanactualappeal.

Casemanagementbeginswhenanappealorapplicationforleavetoappealisfiledintheregistry.Theappealorapplicationislistedforcalloverwithin

OVERVIEW by JURISdICtION

TheCourtmanagestheflowofitscasesfrominceptiontocompletioninanumberofdifferentways,andiscontinuallylookingtoimproveitsprocessesandoutcomes.

CaseflowmanagementstrategiesarereflectedintheUniformCivilProcedureRules,theRulesoftheSupremeCourtandthePracticeNotesissuedbytheChiefJustice.TheJudges,AssociateJudgesandRegistrarsworktogethertoensurethatcasesareresolvedasefficientlyandjustlyaspossible.

Commonly,caseswillbeallocatedtoRegistrarstoestablishthecoreargumentsindisputeanddeterminewhencasesshouldprogresstohearingbeforeaJudgeoranAssociateJudge.ARegistrarmakesdirectionstoensurethatacaseisproperlypreparedforhearing.IfanissuearisesthatfallsoutsidethespecifieddutiesofaRegistrar,heorshemayreferthatcasetoaJudgeoranAssociateJudge.

INtROdUCtION

14

TheDutyJudgealsoconductsanapplicationslisteachMonday.TheapplicationsinthislistaremattersthatcannotbedeterminedbyanAssociateJudgeoraRegistrar.ThesemattersincludeappealsfromtheLocalCourtundertheCrimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001,applicationsforrestrainingorders,applicationsfordeclaratoryrelief,andapplicationstodispensewithajury.Mattersareinitiallylistedat9ambeforeaRegistrartodeterminewhethertheapplicationisreadytoproceed.TheDutyJudgemayspeciallyfixmattersthatcannotbeheardontheMondaytolaterthatweek.

TheDutyJudgedeterminesinterlocutoryapplicationsforrestrainingassetsandissuingexaminationordersunderthe Confiscation of Proceeds of Crime Act 1989, Criminal Assets Recovery Act 1990,andProceeds of Crime Act 1987 (Commonwealth).TheDutyJudgealsoconsiders,inchambers,applicationsseekingauthorisationofwarrants,suchasthosemadeundertheSurveillance Devices Act 2007.

Associate Judges’ list TheAssociateJudgesintheCommonLawDivisiondealwithstatutoryappealsfromtheLocalCourt(exceptundertheCrimes (Local Courts Appeal and Review) Act 2001)andtheConsumerTraderandTenancyTribunal.TheAssociateJudgesalsodealwithapplicationsforsummaryjudgmentanddismissal,applicationsforextensionundertheLimitation Act 1969,andopposedapplicationstotransfermattersfromtheDistrictCourt.TheAssociateJudgesmaydealwithothermattersasoutlinedinScheduleDoftheSupreme Court Rules 1970.

MattersallocatedtotheAssociateJudges’ListarecasemanagedbyaRegistrardailyat9am.TheRegistrarrefersapplicationstoanAssociateJudgewhenreadyforhearing.

Lists of the divisionInadditiontotheabove,theworkoftheDivisionisalsodistributedamongstanumberofspecialisedLists.TheseLists(inalphabeticalorder)are:

• AdministrativeLawList;• BailsList;• CriminalList;• DefamationList;

twoweeksoffiling.Calloversareheldfortnightly,althoughspecialcalloverscanbeheldinurgentmatters.Atthecallover,thepresidingRegistrarwillfixahearingdateandmakedirectionsforthefilingandservingofsubmissionsbytheparties.TheRegistraralsocasemanagesmattersthataredeemedtorequirespecialattention.

Generally,threeJudgeshearanappealorapplication.TheChiefJusticemayalsodirectthatmorethanthreeJudgessitonanappealorapplication,particularlyinmattersinvolvinganimportantissueoflaw.Insomecircumstances,theChiefJusticemaydirectthattwoJudgeshearanappealagainstsentence.AsinglejudgehearssentenceappealsfromtheDrugCourtofNewSouthWales,andalsodealswithbailapplicationsandotherinterlocutoryapplicationsintheCourt.

Common Law divisionCasemanagementintheDivisionbeginswhenasummonsorstatementofclaimisfiledintheregistry.Eachsummonsorstatementofclaim(withtheexceptionofdefaultmatters)isgivenareturndatebeforeaJudgeorRegistrarandplacedinaList.AJudgeisappointedtomanageeachList,whiletheCommonLawListJudgemonitorsallmatterslistedforhearingbeforeaJudge.Registrarshandledefaultmattersadministratively.

Common Law List JudgeTheListJudgeallocatesmatterslistedforhearingtospecificjudges.Whendecidingwhichjudgewillhearamatter,theListJudgeconsidersthetypeofmatter,itsestimatedhearinglength,andwhetherthejudgehasotherCourtcommitments.TheListJudgealsohearsvariousapplicationsinmattersalreadylistedforhearing,includingallapplicationsforadjournment.Fromtimetotime,theListJudgewillissuefurthercasemanagementdirectionsinmattersalreadylistedforhearing.JusticePricewastheCommonLawListJudgethroughout2009.

Common Law duty Judge listTheDutyJudgeisavailableeachdaytohearurgentapplications,includingapplicationsforinterlocutoryinjunctions,duringandoutsidenormalCourthourswhenrequired.JudgesoftheDivisionarerosteredtoactastheDutyJudgeforaweekatatimeduringlawterm.AVacationJudgeisrosteredduringthecourtvacationtoperformthissamerole.

15

defamation ListMattersfiledinthisListafter1January2006arehandledinaccordancewiththeprovisionsoftheDefamation Act 2005.MattersarefirstlistedbeforeaRegistrarfordirections.OncetheRegistrarissatisfiedthattheinitiatingprocessisinorder,heorshewillreferthemattertoaJudgeforfurtherdirectionsandlegalargument.ThepartiesmayalsoasktheJudgetoconsiderifthedisputeshouldbetriedbeforeajury.Ifthejudgegrantsanapplicationfortrialbyajury,thematterwillbesetdownforhearing.Thejurywilldetermineifthematerialinquestionisdefamatoryandifthereisanylawfuldefenceforpublishingthematerial.Ifthejuryfindsthattheplaintiffhasbeendefamedwithoutanylawfuldefencebeingestablished,theJudgewillthendetermineanydamagespayableandresolveanyoutstandingissuesunderdispute.

Mattersfiledbefore1January2006arecasemanagedinanidenticalway,buttheissuesconsideredbythejurydifferslightly.Inthesematters,thejuryisaskedtoconsiderwhetherthemattercomplainedofcarriestheimputationalleged,andifitdoes,whethertheimputationisdefamatory.

TheDefamationListwasmanagedbyJusticeNicholasduring2009.ARegistrarassistsbycase-managingmatterslistedfordirections.PracticeNoteSCCL4governstheoperationoftheList.

General Case Management (GCM) ListThisListcomprisesallcivilcasescommencedbyStatementofClaimthatarenotincludedintheAdministrativeLaw,Defamation,ProfessionalNegligenceorPossessionLists.Itincludesmoneyclaims,personalinjuryclaims,claimsforpossession(excludingland),breachofcontract,personalpropertydamage,maliciousprosecution,andclaimsundertheCompensation to Relatives Act 1897.Thesecasesarecase-managedbyaRegistrarwhoconductsstatusconferencesandfinalconferences.Atthestatusconference,theRegistrargivesdirectionstoensurethecaseisreadyforhearingbythecompliancedateandencouragestheearlyresolutionofdisputesthroughmediationorsettlement.TheproceduresassociatedwiththerunningofthisListaresetoutinPracticeNoteSCCL5.JusticeHoebenmanagedtheGCMListduring2009.

• GeneralCaseManagementList;• PossessionList;and• ProfessionalNegligenceList.

TheChiefJusticeappointsaspecificJudgetoberesponsibleforthemanagementofaListthroughouttheyear.TheJudgesresponsibleforthemanagementofalistduring2009aredetailedbelow.

Administrative Law ListTheAdministrativeLawListreviewsdecisionsofgovernment,publicofficialsandadministrativetribunalssuchastheConsumerTraderandTenancyTribunal.TheAdministrativeLawListoperatesinaccordancewiththeproceduresoutlinedinPracticeNoteSCCL3.

In2009,JusticeHallwasresponsibleforthemanagementoftheAdministrativeLawList.

bails ListApplicationsforbailortoreviewbaildeterminationscanbemadetotheSupremeCourtundertheBail Act 1978inrespectofanypersonaccusedofanyoffence,evenifthetrialwillnotbeheardintheSupremeCourt.Theseapplicationsarelistedthroughouttheyear,includingduringthecourtvacation.CommonLawDivisionJudgesarerosteredonaweeklybasistodeterminetheseapplications.

Criminal ListArraignmenthearingsareheldeachmonthduringLawTerm.Theaimofthearraignmentprocedureistominimisethelossofavailablejudicialtimethatoccurswhentrialsarevacatedaftertheyarelistedforhearing,orwhenaguiltypleaisenteredimmediatelypriorto,oronthedayof,thetrial’scommencement.

Thearraignmentprocedureinvolvescounselatanearlystageoftheproceedings.Thisallowsboththeprosecutionanddefencetoconsiderarangeofissuesthatmayprovideanopportunityforanearlypleaofguilty,orshortenthedurationofthetrial.TheproceduresforarraignmentaredetailedinPracticeNoteSCCL2.JusticeHowiewastheCriminalListJudgeduring2009.

16

Equity duty Judge listAJudgeoftheDivisionisavailableatalltimesforurgentapplications.DutyJudgesarerosteredinblocksoftwoweeks.Ifamatterrequiresanurgentfinalhearing,theDutyJudgewillconsultwiththeChiefJudgeinrespectofthepossibleallocationofanurgentfinalhearingdate.

General listAllcases,otherthanthoseintheSpecialistLists,arecasemanagedbytheRegistrarinEquityintheGenerallist.AnewPracticeNote(SCEq1)wasintroducedin2009toassistthepartieswithidentifyingtherealissuesindisputeandhavingtheircasesmanagedefficiently.

TheRegistrarsetsmattersdownforhearingbeforetheJudgesoftheDivision.During2009,theRegistrarofferedpartiesahearingdatewithinfourmonthsofthefinaldirectionshearing.TheRegistrarwillconsultwiththeChiefJudgeinEquityinrelationtolongand/orcomplexmatters.

Associate Judges’ listTheworkoftheEquityDivisionAssociateJudgesincludesdealingwithcontestedproceduralapplicationsandconductinginquiriesasdirectedbyJudges.TheirworkalsoincludesthehearingofmostapplicationsundertheSuccession Act 2006, theProperty (Relationships) Act 1984,andcertainprovisionsoftheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth).AnAssociateJudgehandlesweeklyreferralsfromtheRegistrar,determiningthosethatcanbedealtwithimmediately,andadjourningthebalance.TheRegistraronlyrefersmatterswherethehearingtimeisnotexpectedtoexceedanhour.MorecomplexmattersarelistedforhearingintheAssociateJudges’listatalaterdate.Urgentreferrals,suchastheextensionofacaveat,maybemadeatanytime.

Specialist Lists of the divisionTheEquityDivision’scaseloadisalsomanagedbyallocatingcertainmatterstospecificListsaccordingtothenatureoftheclaims.TheseListsaresetoutbelowinalphabeticalorder,togetherwiththeidentityofeachListJudgefor2009.

• AdmiraltyList(ListJudge:JusticeRein);• AdoptionsList(ListJudge:JusticePalmer);

Possession ListThePossessionListdealswithallproceedingsfortherecoveryofpossessionofland.ThemanagementoftheListencouragesearlyresolutionofcasesthroughmediation,otheralternativedisputeresolutionprocesses,orsettlement.Casemanagementisalsousedtoclarifytherealissuesindispute.PracticeNoteSCCL6appliestocasesinthisList.JusticeJohnsonwasresponsibleformanagingthePossessionListduring2009.

Professional Negligence ListClaimsagainstmedicalpractitioners,alliedhealthprofessionals(suchasdentists,chemistsandphysiotherapists),hospitals,solicitorsandbarristersareallocatedtotheProfessionalNegligenceList.SpecialisationintheListallowspartiestofocusontherealissuesunderdisputeinthesetypesofclaims.ARegistrarmonitorscasesatregularconferencehearings.Conferencehearingsprovideanopportunityforpartiestodiscussoutstandingissuesinthecase,andprovideaforumformediationbetweentheparties.PracticeNoteSCCL7appliestothisList.

TheProfessionalNegligenceListJudgehearsapplicationsandmakesdirectionsaccordingtothespecificneedsofeachmatter.JusticeHislopmanagedtheListduring2009.

Equity divisionProceedingsintheEquityDivisionarecasemanagedbyRegistrarsandJudgesoftheDivisiontoachievethejust,quickandcheapresolutionoftherealissuesindisputebetweenthelitigants.TheworkoftheDivisionisadministeredthroughtheGenerallistandanumberofSpecialistLists.

Expedition listCasesareexpeditedwhensufficienturgencyisshown.ApplicationsforExpeditionaremadetotheExpeditionJudgeonFridays.TheExpeditionJudgeonFridays.TheExpeditionJudgecasemanagesallexpeditedcasesandhearsthosecaseswhentheyarereadyfortrial.During2009,theExpeditionJudgeswereJusticePalmer,JusticeBreretonandJusticeRein.

17

Corporations ListAJudgesitseachdayoftheweektohearmostapplicationsandhearingsundertheCorporations Act 2001 (Cth)andrelatedlegislation.TheRegistrarmayreferapplicationstotheJudgeonaMonday.TheRegistrardeterminesroutineapplicationstowind-upcompanies,applicationsforleavetoproceedagainstcompaniesinliquidation(limitedtopersonalinjuryactions)andapplicationstoreinstatecompanies.

TheJudgewillgivedirectionsandmonitorpreparationsforhearinginlongermatters,aswellasinothercomplexcorporatecases.CasesmanagedinthisListaregenerallygivenahearingdateassoonastheyareready.

Probate ListTheworkperformedbytheJudgesandtheProbateRegistryconsistsofbothcontentiousandnon-contentiousmatters.Themajorityofnon-contentiouscasesaredealtwithbytheRegistrarandDeputyRegistrars.Thisincludesthegrantingofcommonformprobatewhereapplicationsareinorderandunopposed.

BoththeProbateListJudgeandtheRegistrarshaveprocedureswherebysomesupervisioniskeptoverexecutorsinthefilingofaccounts,andensuringbeneficiariesarepaid.

Incourt,theRegistrarconsidersroutineapplications,andapplicationsconcerningaccounts.Shouldaroutineapplicationrequireadecisiononamatterofprinciple,theapplicationisreferredtotheProbateListJudge.

TheProbateListJudgesitsonceaweektodealwithcomplexapplications.Ifanapplicationcanbedealtwithquickly,itisusuallyheardimmediately.Othersaresetdownforhearing,normallywithinamonth.

ContentiousmattersaremonitoredbyeitheraJudgeoraRegistrar.Contentiousmatterscommonlyincludedisputesastowhatwasatestator’slastvalidwill.Whenthesecasesarereadytoproceed,theyareplacedinthecalloverlisttoreceiveahearingdatebeforeanEquityJudge.

TheProbateListJudgemeetswiththeRegistrarsonaregularbasistodiscusstheefficientworkingoftheList.

• CommercialList(ListJudge:JusticeHammerschlag);

• CorporationsList(ListJudge:JusticeAustin,inconjunctionwithJusticeBarrettandJusticeWhite);

• ProbateList(ListJudge:JusticePalmer);• ProtectiveList(ListJudge:JusticePalmer);• RevenueList(ListJudge:JusticeGzell),and• TechnologyandConstructionList(ListJudge:

JusticeHammerschlag).

Admiralty ListTheAdmiraltyListdealswithmaritimeandshippingdisputes.ItisadministeredinthesamemannerastheCommercialList(seebelow).

Adoptions ListThisListdealswithapplicationsforadoptionordersanddeclarationsofthevalidityofforeignadoptionsundertheAdoptions Act 2000.Mostapplicationsareunopposed.Onceallsupportingaffidavitsarefiled,aJudgewilldealwiththeapplicationintheabsenceofthepublic,andwithouttheattendanceoftheapplicantsortheirlawyers.Unopposedapplicationsrequirecloseattentionforcompliancewithformalrequirements,butthereislittledelay.Asmallnumberofcontentioushearingstakeplaceincourtintheabsenceofthepublic.Mostoftheserelatetodispensingwithconsenttoadoption.TheRegistrarinEquitydealswithrequestsforinformationundertheAdoptions Act 2000.

Commercial ListTheCommercialListisconcernedwithcasesarisingoutoftransactionsintradeorcommerce.ThecaseflowmanagementstrategyappliedtotherunningofthisListaimstohavemattersbroughtonforhearingquicklyby:

• attendingtothetrueissuesatanearlystage;• ensuringwitnessstatementsareexchangedina

timelymanner;and• intensemonitoringofthepreparationofevery

case.

Thereisalsoadherencetotheallottedhearingdates,andhearingsarecontinuedtoconclusion,eventhoughtimeestimatesmaybeexceeded.

18

Firstinstancecriminaltrialswereconductedinthefollowingregionallocations:Albury,Armidale,Bathurst,BrokenHill,Dubbo,EastMaitland,Katoomba,Lismore,Newcastle,Orange,Parramatta,WaggaWaggaandWollongong.CriminaltrialswillcontinuetobeheldinvenuesoutsideSydneyasrequired.

Civilhearingswereheldatregionalvenuesbyspecialfixtureatthefollowinglocationsduringtheyear:Albury,CoffsHarbour,Orange,andWaggaWagga.

AllproceedingsaremanagedfromSydneyirrespectiveofwheretheproceedingswerecommencedorthevenueforhearing.

REGIONAL SIttINGS OF thE COURt

Protective ListTheworkofthisListinvolvesensuringthattheaffairsofpeopledeemedincapableoflookingaftertheirproperty,orthemselves,areproperlymanaged.TheListalsodealswithappealsfromtheGuardianshipTribunalofNSW,alongwithapplications(inchambers)bytheProtectiveCommissionerforadviceregardingtheadministrationofestates.TheCourtalsoconsidersapplicationsregardingmissingpersons’estatesand,incertaincircumstances,mayorderthattheirestatebemanagedundertheProtected Estates Act 1983.

Often,theissuesunderdisputeintheProtectiveListareofahighlysensitivenature.TheCourtacknowledgesthissituation,andhandlestheseproceedingswiththeminimumdegreeofformality.However,whenthereisadisputewhichcannotbesolvedinthisway,itisdecidedaccordingtolaw.

TheRegistrarsitsincourtonedayaweek.TheDeputyRegistrarmaysubmitacasetobedeterminedbytheJudgewithoutfurtherappearanceoradjournacaseintotheJudge’slist.AJudgesitsonceaweektodealwithanyreferredcases.MostcasesareconsideredontheJudge’susualsittingdayassoonasthepartiesareready.Longercases,however,arespeciallyfixed,usuallywithinonemonth.

TheProtectiveListJudgeconsultsregularlywiththeRegistrartodiscusstheefficientworkingoftheList.

Revenue ListTheRevenueListisalistdedicatedtothehearingoftaxationmatters.TheListwascreatedtoensurethatthesemattersareheardasefficientlyaspossible.MattersintheRevenueListareheardbyaspecificEquityDivisionJudgeeachmonth,andallocatedtheearliesthearingdatepossiblebeforethissameJudge.

technology and Construction ListCasesinvolvingcomplextechnologicalissuesanddisputesarisingoutofbuildingorengineeringcontractsareallocatedtothisList.TheListisadministeredbythesameJudgesandinthesamemannerasthoseintheCommercialList.

19

Evenwheremediationfailstoresolveamatterentirelyandthedisputeproceedstocourt,theimpactofmediationcanoftenbecomeapparentatthesubsequentcontestedhearing.Mediationoftenhelpstodefinetherealissuesoftheproceedingsandthismayresultinareductionineventualcourttimeand,consequently,lowerlegalcosts.

ArbitrationArbitrationinvolvesthehearingandadjudicationofadisputebyanarbitrator,ratherthanbyaJudgeorAssociateJudge.DeterminationthrougharbitrationofadisputeregardingrecoveryofdamagesispermittedunderPart5oftheCivil Procedure Act 2005.

TheChiefJusticeappointsexperiencedbarristersandsolicitorsasarbitratorsfollowinganominationbytheirrespectiveprofessionalassociations.

Incontrasttoamediator,anarbitratorimposesasolution(anaward)onthepartiesafterconsideringtheargumentsandevidencepresented.

AnawardofanarbitratorbecomesafinaljudgmentoftheCourt28daysaftertheawardhasbeengiven,providednopartytothearbitrationhasappliedwithinthattimeforarehearing.Ifapartyappliesforarehearing,thenthedisputeisreferredforcasemanagement,tobeheardafreshbeforeaJudge.

Alternativedisputeresolutionisabroadtermthatreferstothemeansbywhichpartiesseektoresolvetheirdispute,withtheassistanceofaneutralperson,butwithoutaconventionalcontestedhearingbeforeaJudgeorAssociateJudge.ThetwoalternativedisputeresolutionprocessesmostcommonlyconsideredforSupremeCourtproceedingsaremediationandarbitration.

MediationMediationisavailableformostcivilproceedingspursuanttoPart4ofthe Civil Procedure Act 2005.Mediationisnotavailableincriminalproceedings.

Theroleofthemediatoristoassistpartiesinresolvingtheirdisputebyalertingthemtopossiblesolutions,whileallowingthepartiestochoosewhichoptionisthemostagreeable.Themediatordoesnotimposeasolutionontheparties.EightqualifiedRegistrarsandDeputyRegistrarswereavailablethroughout2009toconductmediationsatspecifiedtimeseachweek.Alternatively,partiesmayuseprivatemediators.

Amattermayproceedtomediationattherequestoftheparties,ortheCourtmayreferappropriatecasestomediation,withorwithouttheconsentofparties.IftheCourtordersthatamatterbereferredtomediation,thereareseveralwaysinwhichamediatormaybeappointed.Ifthepartiesareinagreementastoaparticularmediator,thentheycanasktheCourttoappointthatmediator,whomayalsobeaRegistraroftheCourt.Ifpartiescannotagreeuponamediator,thentheyshouldattempttoagreeonhowtheCourtcanappointaqualifiedmediator.SomeoptionsaresetoutinPracticeNoteSCGen6.

SettlementofdisputesbymediationisencouragedintheCourtofAppeal,andintheCommonLawandEquityDivisions.Partiesmayderivethefollowingbenefitsfrommediation:

• anearlyresolutiontotheirdispute;• lowercosts;and• greaterflexibilityinresolvingthedisputeasthe

solutionsthatmaybeexploredthroughmediationarebroaderthanthoseopentotheCourt’sconsiderationinconventionallitigation.

ALtERNAtIVE dISPUtE RESOLUtION

20

4 COurt OPerAtiOnS

• Overview of operations by jurisdiction

• timeliness

– time Standards

– waiting times

• use of Alternative Dispute resolution

21

Figure4.1Court of Appeal achievements against time standards for pending caseload

90% 10

0%

87%

98%

90% 97

%

0%

100%

Up to 12 months old Up to 24 months old

National standard Achieved in 2008 Achieved in 2009

Court of Criminal AppealThenumberofnewcasescomingtotheCourtofCriminalAppealwaseightpercentlowerin2009thanin2008.Thisfollowsafourpercentdecreasein2008comparedto2007.

Thedisposalratewassixpercentlowerin2009thanin2008.Thisdegreeofreductionisexpected,astherehasbeenacontinueddecreaseinfilingsoverthelastfiveyears,whichreducesthevolumeofcasesavailableforhearinganddisposal.

Ofthecriminalappealsfinalisedduring2009,91percentrequiredasubstantivehearing.Thepercentageofcasesthatwerefinalisedbytheappellantabandoningtheproceedingsorwithdrawingtheappealwasninepercentin2009,comparedwithsixpercentin2008.

Thelistingdelayforcriminalappealsthatarereadyforhearingimprovedduring2009,reducingfromthreemonthsto2.5months.

AlthoughtheageprofileoftheCourtofCriminalAppeal’spendingcaseloaddeclinedduring2009,itstillremainsgoodrelativetothenationaltimestandards(seeFigure4.2).Comparedwiththepositionattheendof2008,thenumberofcasesolderthan12monthsincreasedfrom11to16,andthenumberofcasesolderthan24monthsincreasedfromthreetoeight.Oneofthoseeightcasesisparticularlycomplexandstillrequiresalargeamountofpreparationbeforeitcanbeconsideredreadyforhearing.

Court of Appeal

ThenumberofnewcasescomingtotheCourtofAppealwassixpercentlowerin2009than2008.Thisfollowsasixpercentdecreaselastyearwhencomparedto2007.

Thenetdisposalratewasthreepercentlowerin2009thanin2008.Settlementrateswerelowerthanlastyear.In2009,21percentoftheleaveapplicationdisposals,and30percentofthefinalisedappealsandapplicationsforrelief,wereachievedthroughsettlement.

Therewas,however,asignificantincreaseinthenumberofcasesfinalisedthroughaconcurrenthearing.Thisiswheretheleaveapplicationand,ifleaveisgranted,therelatedappeal,aredeterminedinasinglehearing.Ofthe151leaveapplicationsfinalisedbyhearingduring2009,97(64percent)werefinalisedbyconcurrenthearing,comparedwith60(43percent)during2008.

Amongthe368disposalsofsubstantiveappealsandapplicationsforreliefduring2008,256(70percent)werefinalisedbyjudgment;32ofthesewereextemporejudgments.

Thereducedfilingrateandtheincreaseduseofconcurrenthearingshavecontributedtothe12percentreductionintheoverallCourtofAppealcaseloadduring2009(from379to328).Thisfollowsasevenpercentreductioninthepreviousyear(from408).

TheageprofileoftheCourtofAppeal’spendingcaseloadhasalsoimproved.Ninetypercentofpendingcasesarelessthan12monthsold,whichmeanstheageofthependingcaseloadisnowconsistentwiththenationalstandard(seeFigure4.1).Comparedwiththepositionattheendof2008,thenumberofcasesolderthan12monthshasdecreasedfrom51to34.Whilethenumberofcasesolderthan24monthshasincreasedfromsixtonine,thereareexternalfactorsdelayingfinalisationinfiveofthoseninecases.

Thelistingdelayforsubstantiveappealsthatarereadyforhearinghasalsoimprovedgreatlyduring2009,from3.5monthsto1.5months.

OVERVIEW OF OPERAtIONS by JURISdICtION** to be read in conjunction with Appendix (ii)

22

timestandards(seeFigure4.3).However,whenevaluatingtheCourt’sperformanceagainstthenationaltimestandardsitisimportanttonotethatalmostallindictmentsinthisListareforoffencesofmurderormanslaughter,orotherwisehavethepotentialforalifesentencetobeimposed,whereastherangeofchargesroutinelybroughtincriminallistsofsupremecourtsinotherstatesandterritoriesisbroaderandincludeslessermaximumsentences.

Comparedwiththepositionattheendof2008,thenumberofpendingdefendantswithcasesolderthan12monthsdecreasedfrom17to16,andthosewithcasesolderthan24monthsincreasedfromfivetosix.Oneofthesixoldestpendingcaseswasdelayedbythecollapseoftheinitialtrial,withanewsix-weektrialrunsometimelater.Theremainingfivecaseswerefordefendantschargedwithterrorismoffences,whoweretriedinacomplexsingletrialinwhichthevoir-direandhearingtimeexceeded12months.ThefivedefendantsweresentencedinFebruary2010.ThisexceptionaltrialhasmaskedtheotherwisestrongpositionoftheCriminalList:excludingthesefivedefendants,therewasonlyoneotherpendingdefendantwithacaseolderthan24months.

Figure4.3Criminal List achievements against time standards for cases of pending defendants



90% 10

0%

81%

94%

81%

93%

0%

100%

ForcriminaltrialsconductedduringtheyearthehearingestimatesgiventotheCourtrangedfromonedayto52weeks,andaveragedaboutfiveweekspertrial.Thisrepresentsaconsiderabledemandforjudicialtime.TheCourtusesactingjudgestoincreaseitscapacitytohearcases,includingcriminaltrialwork.Withoutaccessto

Figure4.2Court of Criminal Appeal achievements against time standards for pending caseload

90% 10

0%

94% 99

%

91% 96

%0%

100%



Common Law division criminal casesDuring2009,106defendantsenteredtheCriminalList,comparedwith101during2008.AfterenteringtheList,thenextstepisusuallyarraignment.Mostdefendantsenterapleaof“notguilty”atarraignment,andthosecasesarethenlistedfortrial.

Atarraignmentsheldduring2009,105defendantswerelistedfortrial(startingineither2009or2010)and17defendantsenteredpleasof“guilty”andwerelistedforsentencehearings.During2009atotalof40guiltypleasweretaken:17atthetimeofarraignment,22afterbeinglistedfortrial(thisincludespleastakenatthestartoforduringthetrial)andoneatothersomeotherstage.

Thelistingdelayforcriminaltrialsthatrequireatleastthreeweeksofhearingtimehasincreasedslightlyduring2009(from2.5monthstothreemonths).ItisrareforSupremeCourtcriminaltrialdatestobetakenwhentheyarecloserinthan2.5months.Nearlyallofthetrialsareconductedwithajury.

During2009,112defendantswerefinalised,comparedwith122during2008.TheCourtpreparedandhandeddown80sentencesduringtheyear.

Attheendof2009therewere84defendantswithcasespendingintheCriminalList,asevenpercentreductionfromthepositionattheendof2008.

TheageprofileforpendingcasesinthisListattheendof2009issimilartothepositionattheendof2008,andtheresultsremainbelowthenational

23

Comparedwith2008,theDivision’scivilfilingratefellby14percent.Fordefendedcases,thedecreasewasthreepercent.Therewasa17percentdecreaseforuncontestedmatters.Contrarytotheoveralltrend,increaseswereseenforthecontestedcasesoftheGeneralCaseManagementListand,toalesserextent,thePossessionList.

Overall,thedisposalratewassixpercenthigherin2009thanin2008.Thisresultcanbeattributedtotheninepercentincreaseinthedisposalrateforuncontestedcases,whichoffsetthetwopercentreductioninthedisposalratefordefendedcases.

ThenumberofpendingcasesintheCommonLawDivisiondecreasedby21percentduring2009(seeFigure4.4).Thisisduetothelargereduction(35percent)inthenumberofuncontestedcasesonhand.MostoftheundefendedcasesarewithinthePossessionList.Fordefendedcases,however,thependingcaseloadincreasedbytwopercent.ThisgrowthhascomefromtheGeneralCaseManagementListandtheAdministrativeLawList.

Figure4.4Common Law division pending civil caseloads at 31 december

2007 2008 2009

1775

2611

4386

1832

2974

4806

1864

1942

3806

0

5000

Defended cases Uncontested cases Total

Bytheendof2009,defendedcasesmadeup49percentofthependingcivilcaseloadoftheCommonLawDivision,comparedwith38percentattheendof2008.Theproportionisswingingbacktowardthepositionseenin2004(whendefendedcaseswere60percentoftheDivision’scivilcaseload).ThesevariationshavebeenstronglyinfluencedbythetrendsinPossessionListfilings,whichincreasedrapidlyfrom2005,butdeclinedduring2009.

actingjudges,itwouldbeunlikelythattheCourtcouldmaintainanacceptableageprofilefortheCriminalListexceptbywithdrawingJudgesfromotherareasofwork.

During2009,trialsfor109defendantswerelistedtostart.Ofthese,trialsfor24defendantseithercollapsedorwereadjourned.Forthefourthconsecutiveyear,notrialwas“notreached”.Thereissomeover-listingofcriminaltrialsanditisahighprioritytoruneverytrial.TheCourtisawareofthefinancialimpactforthevariouspubliclyfundedagenciesinvolvedinthecriminaljusticesystem,andoftheemotionalandfinancialimpactforfamilyofthevictimandforwitnesses,whentrialsareunabletorun.

Thecaseloadandperformancestatisticsfortheyears2005andonwardsarenotdirectlycomparablewithstatisticsforpreviousyearsbecausetheCourtappliednewcountingrulesfrom1January2005.ThosechangestothecountingrulesareexplainedinAppendix(ii).

Common Law division civil cases Thecivilfirst-instanceworkoftheSupremeCourtcomesfromthecivillistsoftheCommonLawDivisionandfromtheEquityDivision(seenextsection).Thecivilcaseloadpositionreportedfor2009isthepositionthathadbeenreachedat17December(not31December),atwhichpointJusticeLink,thenewcasemanagementsystem,wasimplemented.

ThecivilworkoftheCommonLawDivisioncanbeseparatedintotwogroups:defendedcases(includingthespecialisedcase-managedlists)anduncontestedcases(suchasthoseproceedingtodefaultjudgmentandapplicationsdealtwithadministrativelybyRegistrarsandRegistryofficers).

ThefewcasesthathavepreviouslycometotheCourtunderitssummarycriminaljurisdictionhaveusuallybeenincorporatedintothecivilcaseloadstatistics.Anexceptionhasbeenmadeforagroupof248relatedsummaryjurisdictioncriminalcases(prosecutionsundertheFood Act 2003)thatwerefiledduring2007and2008,andfinalisedin2009.Thoseparticularcasesareexcludedfromthefollowinganalysisbecauseoftheirdisproportionateeffectonthestatistics.

24

TherateoffilingintheEquityDivisiondecreasedby11percentin2009,followingafourpercentincreasein2008.Numerically,thelargestdecreasewasintheCorporationsList(inwhichabout90percentofcasesaredealtwithbyaRegistraronly),followedbytheGeneralList.TherewasalsoasignificantreductioninfilingsintheCommercialList,whiletheTechnologyandConstructionListfilingswereatasimilarleveltothosein2008.

Thereporteddisposalrateoverallwasninepercentlowerin2009thanin2008.ThedecreasewaslargelywithintheGeneralList(whichalsoexperiencedasignificantreductioninfilings).ThetwolargestlistsoftheEquityDivisionaretheCorporationsListandtheGeneralList,andthefiguresfordisposalsinthosetwolistsneedtobeinterpretedwithcare.Thoselistscannotbemonitoredsufficientlytosegregatecasesthathavebeenre-openedafterfinalisationofthesubstantiveissues.Consequently,asignificantnumberofcasesmayhavemorethanonedisposalrecordedagainstthem.ThesecountingproblemsareexpectedtodiminishnextyearwhentheJusticeLinksystemisabletoprovidecaseloaddataforcivilcases.Meanwhile,sometrendscanbeinferredfromanysignificantpatternsofchangeovertime.

MostcasesintheCorporationsListareapplicationsthatcanbehandledfullybyaRegistrar.Additionally10to15percentofcasesintheGeneralListarefinalisedbyaRegistrar.Registrars’disposalsmadeup44percentoftheoveralldisposalswithinEquityDivisionthisyear.

ThenumberofpendingcasesintheDivisiondecreasedbyninepercentduring2009(seeFigure4.6).Principally,thisoccurredwithintheCorporationsList(a20percentreduction)andtheGeneralList(aninepercentreduction).Figure4.6Equity division pending civil caseloads at 31 december

2007 2008 2009

2431

631

543

3605

2037

858

577

3472

1856

686

611

3153

0

4000

General List CorporationsList

Otherspecialised lists

Total

Atthecloseof2009,thelistingdelayforCommonLawDivisioncivilcasesthatrequireuptofivedaysofhearingtimewasthreemonths.

Duringtheyeartherewere737matterslistedforhearing(seeFigure4.5),ofwhich62percentproceededtohearingand25percentsettledafterbeinglistedforhearing.Sothatavailablejudicialtimeisusedoptimally,theCommonLawDivision’scivilhearingsareover-listed.Thiscarriesariskthatsomecasesmaybe“notreached”.In2009,onlyonecase(lessthanonepercentoflistedcases)was“notreached”,whichwasthesameresultasfor2008.Thisisanotableachievement.In2007therewerefourcases(onepercentoflistings)notreached,andin2006therewere41(eightpercent).

Themedianfinalisationtimeshaveimprovedformostofthedefendedlists,inparticularforthetwolargestlists,theGeneralCaseManagementListandtheProfessionalNegligenceList.Forcasesproceedingbydefault,medianfinalisationtimehasremainedmoreorlesssteady(ataroundsixmonths)forthelastthreeyears.Medianfinalisationtimedescribestheageatfinalisationforcasesdisposedduringtheyear.Itdoesnotpredictdisposaltimesforpendingorfuturecases.

Figure4.5Listings for hearing – common law civil hearings

2007 2008 2009

760

737

873

0

900

2007 2008 2009

Equity divisionThefollowinganalysiscoversallcasesfiledwithintheEquityDivisionotherthantheuncontestedprobatematters(whicharecoveredinthefinalparagraphofthissection).FormostlistsinthisDivision,the2009thecaseloadpositionisreportedasat17December(not31December),atwhichpointJusticeLink,thenewcasemanagementsystem,wasimplemented.

25

tIMELINESS

time standardsForitsappellatecourtsandfortheCriminalList,theCourt’sperformanceindealingwithcasesinatimelywayisreportedintermsoftheageofthependingcaseload.MeasurementoftheagedistributionwithinapendingcaseloadhelpstheCourttoassessovertimethesuccessofdelayreductionstrategiesandtoidentifyareaswherefurthercase-managementwouldbebeneficial.

Appendix(ii)showsthepositionreachedat31Decemberofthereportingyearincomparisonwiththenationalstandards.

Othercourtsandorganisationsmayusedifferentmethodstomeasuretheageofcasesorreporttimelinessofcasehandling,andthiscanproducestatisticsthatarenotnecessarilycomparable.Tocitecriminalcasesasanexample,theDistrictCourtofNewSouthWalesreportsperformanceintermsofthetimebetweencommittalandthecommencementoftrial,whiletheAustralianBureauofStatisticsproducesnationalstatisticsthatreportperformanceintermsofthetimefromcommittaltoacquittalorsentencing.

TheCourt’stimelinessreportingforcriminalmatters(includingcriminalappeals)alignswiththemethodsusedbytheProductivityCommissioninitsannualReport on Government Services.TimelinessreportingfortheCourtofAppealisalsoalignedwiththemethodsusedbytheProductivityCommission,butisconfinedtothosecaseslodgedintheCourtofAppeal(whereastheProductivityCommission’sfigurescoverallcivilcasesthatareappellateinnature,notjustthoselodgedintheCourtofAppeal).

TheCourthasdeterminedthatitwillreportontheagedistributionwithinitscivillistsoncetheJusticeLinksystemisabletoprovidepreciseandtimelystatisticsontheageofthosecases(approximately7,000casesasattheendof2009,excludingnon-contentiousprobateapplications).Theprevioussystem(Courtnet)wasunabletoprovidestatisticsofsufficientdetailandaccuracyforpendingcivilcaseswithintheCommonLawandEquityDivisions.AnindicationoftheageofpendingcivilcasesisprovidedannuallyforProductivityCommission’sReport on Government Services.In

Atthecloseof2009,thelistingdelayforGeneralListandProbateListcasesthatrequireuptotwodaysofhearingtimehadimprovedgreatly(fromfivemonthsto2.5months).

During2009therewere446matterslistedforhearing,excludingmattersbeforetheDutyJudge,casesreferredtoaCorporationsJudge,AdoptionsListmattersandProtectivelistmatters(seeFigure4.7).Ofthose446listings,70percentproceededtohearingand30percentsettled.UnliketheCommonLawDivision,theEquityDivisiondoesnotroutinelyover-listthecasesforhearing,sothereareno“notreached”cases.

ThemediancasefinalisationtimesformostEquityDivisionListsregressedslightlyduring2009,butcontinuedtobewellunder12months.Medianfinalisationtimedescribestheageatfinalisationforcasesdisposedduringtheyear;itdoesnotpredictdisposaltimesforpendingorfuturecases.

UncontestedapplicationsrelatingtoprobatemattersarefinalisedbyRegistrars.Atotalof22,985applicationswerefiledduring2009.Theprocessingtimeforapplicationsforagrantofprobate,lettersofadministrationorare-seal(ofaprobategrant),wheretheinitialapplicationsmetallproceduralrequirements,increasedtoseveralweeksattimesduring2009.Increasedresourceswereallocatedtobringthedelaybacktonormallevels.Theprocessingtimeconsequentlyimprovedtowardtheendoftheyearandshouldreturntonormallevelsin2010.

Figure4.7Listings for hearing – Equity division

2007 2008 2009

432 46

8

446

0

500

2007 2008 2009

26

Listing delaysThelistingdelaysindicatehowquicklytheCourtisprovidinghearingsforvarioustypesofcasesoncetheyareassessedasreadyforhearing,providingthepartiesarewillingtoselectfromthefirstavailablegroupofhearingdatesofferedbytheCourt.

Thetableinappendix(ii)showsthelistingdelaythatwillapplyatthestartofthenewlawtermfollowingthecloseofthereportingyear.Thelistingdelaysrefertohearing-timerequirementsthatareconsideredrepresentativeortypicalofthevariousareasoftheCourt.Thevariouslistingdelayscanchangeduringtheyear,andupdatedinformationispublisheddailyinthecourtlist.

Bythecloseof2009,thelistingdelaysacrossallthenominatedareasoftheCourt’sworkwerethreemonthsorless.ListingdelaysimprovedstronglyintheCourtofAppealandtheEquityDivision,andtherewasaslightimprovementintheCourtofCriminalAppeal.TherewereslightincreasesinthelistingdelayforthecivilandcriminalcasesoftheCommonLawDivision.

Incontrasttothemeasurementsofageofpendingcasesandcasefinalisationtimes,themeasurementoflistingdelayslargelyeliminatestheimpactoffactorsoutsidethecontrolofthecourt.Suchfactorscaninclude,forexample,delaysinservingcourtdocuments,delayscausedbytheneedtojoinadditionalpartiestoproceedings,timetakenupwithinterlocutoryissues,timeneededforpartiestopreparetheirevidence,timethatelapseswhilepartiesattemptmediationortakepointsonappeal,anddelaysthatariseifapartyneedsatrialdatethatislaterthanthefirstavailable.

theabsenceofcomputerisedreporting,eachyeartheRegistrystaffundertakeatime-consuminganalysis,applyingtheCommission’scountingrules,toestimatetheageprofile(asat30June)fortheCourt’scivilnon-appealcasesasasinglegroup.

Waiting timesFortheareasoftheCourtwherereportingsystemsareunabletoprovideinformationneededtoaccuratelyreporttheageofthependingcaseload,waitingtimeinformationisshowninstead.

ThewaitingtimesshowninAppendix(ii)representcasefinalisationtimes,usingmediantimes,usualtimesortimerangesthatwererecordedduringthereportingyear.

Whenlookingatthechangesincasefinalisationtimesovertheyearsitisimportanttounderstandthatcasefinalisationtimescanappeartoworsen(lengthen)inyearswhenanunusuallylargenumberofoldercasesarefinalised.Yearswithcomparativelyhighcasefinalisationtimesareoftenyearswhenbacklogsofoldcaseshavebeenaddressed.

Casefinalisationtimesshouldnotbeusedtopredictthefinalisationtimeofcurrentorfuturecases.Thisisnotonlybecausecasefinalisationresultsdependonwhetheroldercasesformanunusuallyhighproportionoftheyear’sfinalisedcases(asexplainedabove),butalsobecausecasefinalisationtimeincludesthetimethatpartiestaketopreparethecasetothepointwhereitisreadytobeheardsubstantively.Thetimerequiredtoprepareacaseforhearingwillvarysignificantlyfromcasetocase,accordingtothecomplexityofissues,thesituationofthepartiesinvolvedandotherfactors.

27

USE OF ALtERNAtIVE dISPUtE RESOLUtION

settlementsarenotrecordedassettlements“atmediation”eventhoughthemediationproceduremayhavehelpedthepartiestoeventuallyreachthatsettlement.Therearenostatisticsonsettlementratesforcasesreferredtoprivatemediators.

Thelistingdelayforcourt-annexedmediationsessionsrangedbetweenoneandsixweeksduringmostoftheyear.Thelistingdelaycanchangeduringtheyear,andupdatedinformationispublisheddailyinthecourtlist.

Nocaseswerelistedforarbitrationduring2009.Theuseofarbitrationhasdeclined,primarilybecausetheDistrictCourt’sjurisdictionhasexpandedtoincludemostoftheworkthathadtypicallybeenarbitratedintheSupremeCourt.Duringthepastfiveyears,theCourthasreferredonlyonecasetoarbitration.

MediationisthemostpopularformofalternativedisputeresolutionforSupremeCourtproceedings.During2009,theRegistryrecorded1,111referralstomediation,ofwhichapproximately60percentwerereferralstocourt-annexedmediationconductedbytheCourt’sRegistrars.

Litigantsinanycontestedcivilcase(includingappeals)canconsiderusingmediation.During2009approximately4,650civilcaseswerefiledforwhichmediationmightbepossible.Mediationisinapplicabletotheothercivilcasesthatwerecommenced(largelycaseswherenodefendantconteststheclaim,routineprobateapplications,applicationsforadoptionofchildren,applicationstowindupcompanies,applicationsforrecoveryofproceedsofcrimeandapplicationsthatrequireadministrativeprocessingonly).

During2009,therateofreferringcasestomediationwas24percentofthefilingrateforcasesinwhichmediationmightbeapplicable.Thisrepresentsstronggrowthinuseofmediationoverthelastfouryears(in2005,themediationreferralratewasonlyninepercentofthefilingrateforapplicablecases).

Withinthecourt-annexedmediationprogram,thenumberandpercentageofcasessettlingatmediationdecreasedfrom59percentlastyearto49percentin2009.Althoughasignificantdecrease,itiswithintherangeofresultsseenoverthelastfewyears.Casesareconsideredtohavesettledatmediationifthepartieshaveagreedtofinalisingordersbythecloseofthemediationprocedureorhavedraftedheadsofagreement.Ifpartiesagreetosettletheirdisputeatanytimeafterthecloseofthemediationsession,those

28

5 eDuCAtiOn AnD PuBLiC infOrmAtiOn

• Judicial officer education

• Public education programme

• the role of the Public information Officer

29

Bergin,HoebenandBreretonparticipatedinapaneldiscussingCurrent (or is that Concurrent?) Trends in Expert Evidence and Expert Determination. Therewerealsoseveralguestpresentersattheconference.TheChiefJusticeofAustralia,theHonourableRobertFrench,spokeaboutInternational Conventions and Australian Domestic Law;ProfessorPrueVinesfromtheFacultyofLawattheUniversityofNSWspokeaboutGovernment Liability in Tort — Public Authorities;MajorGeneral(Retired)JimMolandeliveredasessionaboutRunning the War in Iraq;andProfessorFredWatson,AstronomerinChargeattheAnglo-AustralianTelescope,presentedasessiononAstronomers Behaving Badly.

• InAugustsixjudgesattendedtheAnnualSupremeCourtConferenceonCorporateLaworganisedbytheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWales,theLawSocietyofNewSouthWalesandtheRossParsonsCentreofCommercial,CorporateandTaxationLawattheUniversityofSydney.EachofthefivesessionswaschairedbyajudgeoftheCourt.TheConferencewassubstantiallyorganisedbyJusticeRobertAustinwhopreparedadetailedbackgroundpaperfortheConferenceandeditedthepublicationofthepapersdeliveredwhichwere:ProfessorIanRamsay“IntheBestInterestsoftheCompany(includingcreditors)”;IanJackmanSC“RecentDevelopmentsinLiabilityforInsolventTrading”;NeilYoungQC“Directors’DutyofCareandDiligence”;ProfessorJenniferHill“NewTrendsintheRegulationofExecutiveCompensation”andAlanCameron“HowDoDirectorsSleepatNight?”.

• InOctober,10judgesattendedatwilightseminar“TheMentalHealthLegislationAmendment(ForensicProvisions)Act”givenbytheHonourableGregJamesQC.

• InDecember,12judgesattendedatwilightseminargivenbyTheHonourableJusticeMcClellanandTheHonourableJusticeHoebenAMRFDon“ConcurrentEvidenceintheSupremeCourt”.

Manyjudicialofficersupdatedanddevelopedtheirskillsandknowledgeduringtheyearbyattendingconferences,seminarsandworkshops.SomeoftheprogrammesaretailoredspecificallytotheCourt’sneeds,whileotherstargettheinternationallegalcommunity.Anoverviewofsomeoftheeducationalactivitiescompletedduring2009appearsbelow.Foramorecomprehensivelistofactivities,pleaserefertoAppendix(iv)“OtherJudicialActivity”.

domestic activities • InJanuary,14judgesattendedtheannual

SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’ConferenceinHobart.SomeofthetopicscoveredduringthreedayConferenceprogrammeincludedcomplexcivillitigation,theimpactofmigrationlawonadministrativelaw,andpolicyandethicalissuesinlitigationfunding.

• InFebruary,nineSupremeCourtjudgesattendedacross-jurisdictionaltwilightseminar“RecentAmendmentstotheEvidenceAct”givenintheBancoCourtbyMrStephenOdgersSC.

• InMay,12judgesattendedanadvancedonlineresearchskillsworkshopheldatthecourt.

• InAugust,theannualSupremeCourtJudges’ConferencewasheldattheMercureHunterValleyGardensinPokolbin.Forty-onejudges,threeassociatejudgesandoneactingjudgeattendedthethree-dayconference.Thisyear’skeynotespeakerwasLordNeubergerofAbbotsbury.Inhiskeynoteaddress,entitledProprietary Estoppel in Domestic and Commercial Contexts, LordNeubergerexaminedthedevelopmentofthedoctrineofproprietoryestoppel(orequitableestoppelasitisknowninAustralia)andconsideredanumberofcasesthathavebeenthesubjectofmuchextra-judicialcommentandinterestbyreasonoftheirdifferingapproach.SeveraloftheCourt’sjudgespresentedsessionsattheConference.ActingJusticeHandleyprovidedacommentaryonLordNeuberger’spaper;JusticeHowiespokeaboutDevelopments in Criminal Trials;JusticeReinpresentedapaperentitledOutside the Construction Zone: Three Aspects of Practical Importance in Insurance Litigation;andJusticesAllsopandMcCallumprovidedashortpresentationabouttheExchanging Ideas Conference.Inaddition,JusticesMcClellan,

JUdICIAL OFFICER EdUCAtION

30

PUbLIC EdUCAtION PROGRAMME

EachweektheCourt’sRegistrarsaddresssecondaryschoolstudentsandcommunitygroupsregardingtheCourt’sjurisdictionanddailyoperations.Afterthelecture,thegroupistakentoanappropriatecourtroomtoobserveaSupremeCourttrial.Demandforthesegrouptalksremainshigh,particularlyamongstsecondaryschoolLegalStudiesstudents.Morethan1,000studentsandmembersofthepublicattendedtheselecturesin2009.

InNovember,theCourtalsoparticipatedinSydneyOpenDay,abiennialeventorganisedbytheHistoricHousesTrust.TheKingStreetCourtComplexwasopeneduptovisitorswithover500peopleattendingguidedarchitecturaltoursofthebuilding.

Otherdomesticeducationalactivitiesjudgesundertookduringtheyearincluded:

• JudgmentWritingWorkshop:Fivejudgesattendedacross-jurisdictionaljudgmentwritingworkshop.Theseinteractiveworkshopshelpjudicialofficersdevelopandrefinetheabilitytowriteclear,concise,well-structuredjudgments.TwentyeightSupremeCourtjudgeshavenowattendedoneoftheseworkshops.

• OrientationProgram:FourjudgesfromtheSupremeCourtattendedoneofthetwofive-dayresidentialNationalJudicialOrientationPrograms,whichassistnewlyappointedjudicialofficerswiththeirtransitiontojudicialofficebyfacilitatingthedevelopmentandrefinementoftheskillsandknowledgenecessaryforeffectivejudging.ItisconductedbytheNationalJudicialCollegeofAustraliawiththeassistanceoftheJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWalesandtheAustralianInstituteofJudicialAdministration.

• AboriginalAwarenessProgram:SupremeCourtjudgeswereenthusiasticparticipantsintheJudicialCommission’sNgaraYuraProgramwhichaimstoincreaseawarenessamongjudicialofficersaboutcontemporaryAboriginalsociety,customsandtraditions,andtheireffectonAboriginalpeopleinthejusticesystem.The“ExchangingIdeas”ConferencebroughttogetherjudicialofficersfromalllevelsofthecourtsandAboriginalcommunitymembersfromacrossNSWtodiscussadiverserangeofmattersrelatingtoAboriginalcultural,socialandlegalissues.ItprovidedauniqueopportunityforadiscussionofthewaysjudicialofficersmaycontributetothejusttreatmentofAboriginalpeopleinthecourtsystem.FourSupremeCourtjudgeswereinvolved.

• 360DegreeFeedbackProgram:Thisyear,twojudgesparticipatedinthe360degreefeedbackprogramconductedforacross-jurisdictionalgroupofjudgesandmagistrates.Theprogramisdesignedtoprovidejudicialofficerswithcandid,constructivefeedbackontheirperformance,andassistintheirpersonalandprofessionaldevelopment

• BenchBookDevelopment:TheCourtcontinuedtoworkwiththeJudicialCommissiontoensuretheCriminalTrialsCourtsBenchBookandtheCivilTrialsBenchBookwereregularlyupdatedbyjudgestoreflectdevelopmentsinthelawandsentencingpractice.

31

thE ROLE OF thE PUbLIC INFORMAtION OFFICER

TheCourt’sPublicInformationOfficer(PIO)istheprincipalmediaspokespersonforthesuperiorNSWcourtsandprovidesaprofessionalcourt-medialiaisonservice.

ThemajorroleofthepositionistoprovidethemediawithinformationaboutcourtproceedingsintheNSWSupremeCourt,theLandandEnvironmentCourt,theIndustrialRelationsCommissionofNSWandtheDistrictCourtofNSW.

ThePIOworkswiththemediatoensurethatjudicialdecisionsarecorrectlyinterpretedandreportedtothecommunity,andthatinitiativestakenbythecourtstoenhanceaccesstojusticearewidelypromoted.

ThePIOisalsoresponsibleforensuringthatmediaoutletsarealerttoanysuppressionordersissuedinproceedings,andthattheyarefamiliarwiththetermsandimpactsoftheseorders.

Thedistributionof,andadherenceto,suppressionornon-publicationordersiscriticalasthemedia’sfailuretoacknowledgethemintheircoveragecouldcompromiseproceedings.

During2009,thePIOhandled3,327enquiriesfromthemedia.Ofthese:

• 76.2percent(2,467enquiries)relatedtoSupremeCourtmatters;

• 18percent(582enquiries)relatedtoDistrictCourtmatters,and

• 5.8percent(278enquiries)relatedtoothercourts,includingtheIndustrialRelationsCommissionandtheLandandEnvironmentCourt.

Ofthe3,327mediaenquiriesreceived:64.3percentwerefromSydneymetropolitanjournalists/reporters(majornewspapers,radioandTVstations);18.9percentwerefromNSWregionalnewspapers,radioandTVstations,2.9percentwerefromsuburbanSydneynewspapers,and1.4percentwerefrominterstatejournalists.Theremaining12.5percentoftheenquirieswerefromwritersforspecialist/tradepublicationsormembersofthepublic.

32

6 OtHer ASPeCtS Of tHe COurt’S wOrk

• uniform Civil Procedure rules

• JusticeLink

• Law Courts Library

• Admission to the Legal Profession and appointment of Public notaries

• Admission under the mutual recognition Acts

• Administration of the Costs Assessment Scheme

• Pro Bono scheme

• Judicial Assistance Program

33

TheLawCourtsLibraryisalegalresourceandinformationcentreforalljudicialofficers,chamberstaffandRegistrarsintheLawCourtsBuilding.

TheNSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneralandtheFederalCourtofAustraliajointlyfundtheLawCourtsLibrary.TwocommitteesoverseetheoperationsoftheLibrary:theOperationsCommitteeandtheAdvisoryCommittee.

TheOperationsCommitteecomprisesanequalnumberofrepresentativesfromtheNSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneralandtheFederalCourtofAustralia.TheOperationsCommitteeisresponsibleforsettingbudgetpriorities,revenue,businessplanningandLibrarypolicy.TheAdvisoryCommitteeconsistsofthreeJudgesfromtheFederalCourtofAustraliaandthreeJudgesfromtheSupremeCourtofNSW.TheAdvisoryCommitteeconsultswiththeOperationsCommitteeonmattersofbudget,collectiondevelopmentandserviceprovision.

During2009,theSupremeCourtrepresentativesontheAdvisoryCommitteewere:

TheHonourableJusticeAllsop;

TheHonourableJusticeBasten,and

TheHonourableJusticeAustin.

LAW COURtS LIbRARy

TheUniformCivilProcedureRulesprojectcommencedin2003whentheAttorneyGeneral’sDepartmentdevelopedacross-jurisdictionalWorkingParty.TheWorkingParty’schiefaimwastoconsolidateprovisionsaboutcivilprocedureintoasingleActanddevelopacommonsetofrulesforcivilprocessesintheSupreme,DistrictandLocalCourts.

Thisaimwassubstantiallyachievedthroughthecommencementin2005oftheCivil Procedure Act 2005 andUniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005.AUniformRulesCommitteewasestablishedundersections8,17andSchedule2oftheAct.TheCommitteeischairedbytheChiefJustice.ThePresidentoftheCourtofAppeal,JusticeHoeben,andJusticeReinalsorepresenttheCourtontheCommittee.

JUStICELINk

TheCourtcontinuedtobeactivelyinvolvedintheNSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral’sJusticeLinkprojectduringtheyear,particularlythroughtheJusticeLinkSteeringCommittee.

TheCommitteeisaninitiativeoftheDepartmentandincludesrepresentativesfromtheSupreme,DistrictandLocalCourts.ItaimstoensuretheJusticeLinksystemmeetstheneedsofcourtsandotherjusticeagenciesintheDepartment.ThefollowingSupremeCourtjudicialofficersandregistrystaffservedontheCommitteein2009:

• TheHonourableJusticeHowie;• TheHonourableJusticeGzell;• TheHonourableJusticeLatham;• TheHonourableJusticeRein• TheHonourableAssociateJusticeMacready,and• MsMeganGreenwood,ChiefExecutiveOfficer

andPrincipalRegistrar.

UNIFORM CIVIL PROCEdURE RULES

34

ProfessorSColbranProfessorJMcKeoughMsMTangney(NSWAttorneyGeneral’s

Department)ExecutiveOfficerandSecretary:MsRSzabo.

the board’s work during 2009• SincetheUniformPrincipleswereintroduced

inApril2008,theBoardhascontinuedtoworkwiththeLawAdmissionsConsultativeCommittee(LACC)andotherAustralianadmittingauthoritiestoapplythePrincipleswhenassessingoverseasqualifications.RecommendationsforamendmentsmadebytheBoardhavebeenadoptedbyLACC.InanefforttoassistapplicantsintheirunderstandingofthePrinciples,theBoardpublishedapaper‘PoliciesforOverseasApplicantsforAdmission’onitswebsite.

• AftermuchdiscussionaboutthePrinciplesandtheirimpactoneminentoverseaspractitioners,inparticular,thosefromtheUK,theBoardmadeitknownthatitwouldretainanunfettereddiscretiontograntexemptionsundersection24(4)oftheLegal Profession Act 2004.Inordertofacilitatereformanduniformity,documentationrelatingtoallexemptionsgrantedbytheBoardwascirculatedtoLACC,AdmittingAuthoritiesandtheNationalLegalProfessionTaskforce.

Table6.1:Summary and comparison of the Legal Profession Admission board’s workload

2007 2008 2009

LawyeradmissionsapprovedbytheBoard

1,985 2,005 1,839

CertificatesofCurrentAdmissionproducedbytheBoard

452 427 324

PublicNotariesappointedbytheBoard

58 58 66

Students-at-Lawregistrations 600 548 610

(Note:admissionsunderMutualRecognitionActsarenotincluded.PleaserefertothesectionbelowentitledAdmission Under Mutual Recognition Acts)

TheLegalProfessionAdmissionBoardisaself-fundingstatutorybodyestablishedundertheLegal Profession Act 2004.TheBoardmakesandappliesrulesgoverningtheadmissionoflawyersandappointmentofpublicnotariesinNewSouthWales.Italsoassessesthequalificationsofoverseasapplicantsandaccreditsacademiclawdegreesandpracticallegaltrainingcourses.SuccessfulcompletionoftheBoard’sexaminationsleadstotheawardofaDiplomainLawthat,forthepurposeofadmissionasalawyerinNewSouthWales,istheequivalentofadegreefromanaccreditedlawschool.Onceadmittedasalawyer,apersonmayapplytotheLawSocietyofNSWortheNSWBarAssociationforapractisingcertificateaseitherasolicitororbarrister.

TheBoardcomprisestheChiefJustice,threeotherJudgesoftheSupremeCourt,anomineeoftheAttorneyGeneralandkeymembersofthelegalprofession.TheBoardmaintainsacloseworkingrelationshipwiththeCourtinotherrespects,byprovidingofficerstoassistintheadministrationofadmissionceremonies,maintainingtheRollsofLawyersandPublicNotaries,andliaisingwiththeCourt’sRegistryaboutapplicationsmadeundertheMutualRecognitionActs.Inaddition,fiveJudgesoftheCourtprovideimportantpolicyinputbymaintainingpositionsontheBoard’scommitteesandtheLawAdmissionsConsultativeCommittee(LACC).

During2009,themembersoftheLegalProfessionAdmissionBoardwere:

TheHonourabletheChiefJusticeTheHonourableJusticeTobiasAMRFD(Presiding

Member)TheHonourableMrJusticeGrove(DeputyPresiding

Member;until23June)TheHonourableJusticeCampbellTheHonourableJusticeSlattery(DeputyPresiding

Memberfrom24June)MrJGormlySCMrGMcGrathMrCCawleyMrJDobson

AdMISSION tO thE LEGAL PROFESSION ANd APPOINtMENt OF PUbLIC NOtARIES

35

Work during 2009• TheCommitteeanditssub-committees

continuedtoapplytheUniformPrinciplestoapplicationsforoverseasassessmentandworkedcloselywiththeBoardinresolvingissuesthataroseasaresultoftheirimplementation.InadditiontoreviewingandmakingrecommendationstotheBoardonchangesproposedbytheLawAdmissionsConsultativeCommittee(LACC)ithassuggestedchangesthathaveultimatelybeenadoptedbyLACC.

• TheCommitteeconsideredarecordnumberofapplicationsforreview(87),comparedto70in2008and33in2007–adirectresultoftheintroductionofthePrinciples.TheCommitteealsoconsidered25applicationsforextensionsoftimeforacademicorPLTexemptions,19ofwhichwereapprovedand11requestsfromstudentstocreditsubjectsundertakenatotherinstitutions,9ofwhichwereapproved.

Table6.2:Applications considered by the Legal Qualifications Committee

2007 2008 2009

ApplicationsforAcademicExemptions

509 616 443

ApplicationsforPracticalTrainingExemptions

207 195 103

Examinations CommitteeTheExaminationsCommitteeisconstitutedbytheLegalProfessionAdmissionRulestooverseethecontentandconductoftheBoard’sexaminationsandthecandidaturesofStudents-at-Law.Ithasthreesub-committees.ThePerformanceReviewSub-CommitteedeterminesapplicationsfromstudentsseekingtoavoidorovercomeexclusionfromtheBoard’sexaminations.TheCurriculumSub-Committee,inconsultationwiththeBoard’sexaminersandrevisingexaminers,plansthecurriculumfortheBoard’sexaminations,andtheQualitySub-Committeeoverseesthequalityofexaminationsandmarking.

Legal Qualifications CommitteeTheLegalQualificationsCommitteeisconstitutedundertheLegalProfessionAdmissionRulestosuperintendthequalificationofcandidatesforadmissionandtoadvisetheBoardinrelationtotheaccreditationofacademicandpracticaltrainingcoursesinNewSouthWales.TheCommitteeperformsitsworklargelythroughitssub-committeesandreviewsdecisionsofthesesub-committeesattherequestofaggrievedapplicants.Inadditiontoappealsfromsub-committeedecisionsandrequestsforextensionsoftheperiodsofvalidityofacademicandpracticaltrainingexemptions,itconsidersapplicationsfromstudents-at-lawwhoseekapprovalunderrule97(9)toapplyforexemptionsonthebasisofstudiesundertakenatotherinstitutionsafterregistrationasastudent-at-lawwiththeBoard.

During2009themembersoftheLegalQualificationsCommitteewere:

TheHonourableJusticeWhite(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeCampbell(Deputy

Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeHarrisonMrJFernonSCMsSLeisMsEPickerMrHMackenMrCCawleyMrJDobsonMrGRossMrRHarrisMrPUnderwoodProfessorALambAMDrGElkingtonExecutiveOfficerandSecretary:MsRSzabo

36

AdMISSION UNdER thE MUtUAL RECOGNItION ACtS

ThemanagementofapplicationsfromlegalpractitionersforadmissionundertheMutualRecognitionActsformsanotheraspectoftheRegistry’swork.TheRegistryliaiseswiththeLegalProfessionAdmissionBoardinperformingthistask.In2009,38NewZealandpractitionerswereenrolledundertheTransTasmanMutualRecognitionAct1997.NopersonwasadmittedundertheMutualRecognitionAct1992.Forcomparisonpurposes,in2008,therewere64Trans-Tasmanadmissionsandnilinterstateenrolments,whilefor2007,therespectivetotalswere70and3.ThenumberofpractitionersenrolledundertheMutualRecognitionAct1992isnegligible,ifnotnonexistentaseachStateandTerritory,exceptSouthAustralia,hasenactedlegislationthatallowsinterstatepractitionerstopractiseseamlesslythroughoutAustralia.

During2009,themembersoftheExaminationsCommitteewere:

TheHonourableJusticeSimpson(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeHall(DeputyChairperson)MrMChristieSCMrJDobsonMrFAstillMsSCarterMrRAndersonExecutiveOfficerandSecretary:MsRSzabo

Work during 2009• TheCommitteeapprovedanewFamilyLaw

syllabus,whichtakesintoaccountrecentchanges,particularlythelessadversarialtrial(LAT)processinparentingandfamilyservices.

• ItendorsedandreferredtotheBoardforapproval,proposalsthatassignmentscontributetowardsthefinalexaminationmarkandtheintroductionofanewoptionalcoursetotheBoard’sDiplomainLawcurriculumentitledUnderstanding Legal Language and Legislation.

• AmendmentsandimprovementscontinuedtobemadetothedocumentsettingoutrequirementsofExaminersandRevisingExaminersintheconductoftheBoard’sexamsandtheCommitteecontinuedtocloselymonitoreachsemester’sexaminationperformancestatistics

Table6.3:three-year comparison of the Examinations Committee’s workload

2007 2008 2009

ExaminationsubjectenrolmentsbyStudents-at-Law

5,042 4,847 4,804

Approvedapplicationstositexaminationsinnon-scheduledvenues

46 39 45

Approvedapplicationsforspecialexaminationconditions

37 34 41

Student-at-lawcourseapplications 310 236 248Applicationsfromstudents-at-lawliableforexclusionfromtheBoard’sexaminations

361 335 315

37

TheProBonoSchemewasestablishedunderPart66AoftheSupreme Court Rules 1970in2001withsupportfromtheNSWBarAssociationandtheLawSocietyofNSW.Theschemeenablesunrepresentedlitigantstobereferredtoabarristerand/orsolicitoroncetheCourtdeterminestheyaredeservingofassistance.Overthecourseoftheyear,theCourtmade35referralsundertheScheme:onereferralwasmadeinaCourtofAppealmatter,17referralsweremadebyjudgesineachoftheCommonLawandEquityDivisions.TheScheme’ssuccessdependsuponthecontinuedgoodwillofbarristersandsolicitors,andtheCourtgratefullyacknowledgesthosewhosupporttheSchemebyvolunteeringtheirservices.

JUdICIAL ASSIStANCE PROGRAM

AJudicialAssistanceProgramwaslaunchedtohelpNewSouthWalesjudicialofficersmeetthedemandsoftheirworkwhilstmaintaininggoodhealthandwell-being.Theschemeprovidesfor24-houraccesstoaprofessional,confidentialcounsellingserviceandfreeannualhealthassessments.TheCourtadministersthisProgramonbehalfofallthejurisdictions.

PRO bONO SChEME

TheCostsAssessmentSchemecommencedon1July1994.Itistheprocessbywhichclientsandpractitionersdeterminetheamountofcoststobepaidintwoprincipalareas:betweenpractitionersandtheirclientsandparty/partycosts.Party/partycostsarecoststobepaidwhenanorderismadefromaCourt(orTribunal)forunspecifiedcosts.TheCostsAssessmentsectionoftheRegistryundertakestheday-to-dayadministrationoftheCostsAssessmentScheme.

TheCostsAssessmentSchemeistheexclusivemethodofassessmentoflegalcostsformostjurisdictions.ApplicationsundertheSchemearedeterminedbyexternalassessorsappointedbytheChiefJustice.Allassessorsaremembersofthelegalprofession.TheChiefJusticealsoappointscostsassessorstotheCostsAssessmentRulesCommittee.MrGordonSalierAM,solicitor,wastheChairoftheCostsAssessmentRulesCommitteeduring2009.TherewerenomeetingsoftheCostsAssessmentRulesCommitteein2009.

ACostsAssessmentUsers’Groupmeetsonaquarterlybasistodiscussissuesincostsassessmentfromauser’sperspective.TheCostsAssessmentUsers’GroupischairedbyJusticeBreretonandconsistsoftheManager,CostsAssessment,costsassessors,costsconsultantsandarepresentativeoftheOfficeoftheLegalServicesCommissioner.

During2009,1,991applicationswerelodged.Ofthese,1,081(54percent)relatedtocostsbetweenparties;253(13percent)werebroughtbyclientsagainstpractitioners,and502(25percent)werebroughtbypractitioners.Thereviewprocess,whichisrelativelyinformalinnature,iscarriedoutbytwoseniorassessorsofappropriateexperienceandexpertiseandisconductedalongsimilarlinestothatusedintheoriginalassessmentprocess.Thereviewpanelcanvarytheoriginalassessmentandisrequiredtoprovideashortstatementofitsreasons.In2009,155(eightpercent)applicationswerefiledforreviewofcostsassessments.

Thereisstillprovisiontoappealthereviewpanel’sdecisiontotheCourt,asofrightonquestionsoflawandotherwisebyleave.However,followingalegislativechangeon1September2008,theseappealsareheardintheDistrictCourt,nottheSupremeCourt,unlessinthecaseofaparty/partyapplicationapartyseeksleavetoappealtothecourtortribunalthatmadethecostsorder.

AdMINIStRAtION OF thE COStS ASSESSMENt SChEME

38

7 APPenDiCeS

39

APPENdIx (I): NOtAbLE JUdGMENtS – SUMMARIES OF dECISIONSThe Court’s full text judgments are accessible online at: http://www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/caselaw

partlypaidshareswouldbecancelledduringaplannedrestructure.Theplaintiffclaimedthe11directorsbreachedsection180(1)byapprovingthememo’sdistributionwithoutamendment.

JusticeGzellmadearangeoffindingsconcerningthestockexchangeannouncements,mostly,butnotexclusively,supportingtheplaintiff’sallegations.HisHonourwassatisfiedJHIL’sboardcertainlyapprovedadraftannouncementthatexaggeratedtheadequacyofthefoundation’sfunding,anditsabilitytounreservedlycoverallfuturelegitimatedamagesclaims.JusticeGzelldismissedanysuggestionthatblamecouldbetransferredfromthedirectorstothoseresponsiblefordraftingtheannouncement,orthatanappreciationoftheannouncement’sinaccuracyrequireddetailedspecialistknowledge.Theannouncementconcernedamajorrestructure,thedetailsofwhichall11directorswerefamiliar,andwaswritteninplainEnglish.JusticeGzellfoundthat,byapprovingthedraftannouncement,all11executiveandnon-executivedirectorsfailedtodischargetheirdutieswiththecareanddiligencesection180(1)demands.

HisHonourmadefurtherfindingsabouttheexecutivedirectors.JusticeGzellfoundallfourexecutivedirectorshadadditionallybreachedsection180(1)whentheyfailedtodeclaretotherestoftheboardthattherewereknownlimitationsinthefinancialprojectionsreferredtointheannouncement.However,hisHonourwasnotpreparedtoallowtheplaintiff’sclaimthatthedirectorsbreachedtheirdutiesbyfailingtodeclarethattheprojectedliabilitiesforfutureasbestosclaimsweretoouncertain.

JusticeGzellalsoconsideredtheaddeddutiesonindividualexecutivedirectors.JHIL’sCEOandCompanySecretary,MrMacdonaldandMrShafron,wereuniquelypositionedtohavethegreatestinputintodecisionsaffectingthewhole,orasubstantialpart,ofJHIL’sbusiness.Consequently,JusticeGzellfoundtheyhadanaddedobligationtoalerttherestoftheboardtotheannouncement’sinaccuracies,andtheirfailuretodosoconstitutedanotherbreachofsection180(1).JusticeGzellalsofoundthat

1. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Macdonald (No 11) ThisdecisionwasoneofseveraltheCourthandeddownindeterminingtheplaintiff’scivilpenaltyproceedingsagainstformerexecutiveandnon-executivedirectorsofJamesHardieIndustriesLimited(“JHIL”).Thisparticulardecisionwassignificantasitclarifiedthestatutorydutiesofexecutives,particularlythoseofnon-executivedirectors.

The12defendantsintheproceedingscomprisedthecompanybeingwoundup(ABN60PtyLtd,formerlyknownasJHIL),aDutchholdingcompany,threeexecutivedirectorsandsevennon-executivedirectorsofJHIL.JHILwastheholdingcompanyfortheJamesHardiegroupofcompanies.Thesecompanieswereresponsiblefortheproductionandsaleofasbestosproductsandsubjecttosignificantdamagesclaimsfrompeopleaffectedbyasbestosrelateddiseases.Whilethereweresomedifferencesintheclaimstheplaintiffmadeagainsteachdefendant,theyessentiallyrelatedtotheJHILboard’sroleinapprovinganddistributingseveralallegedlyfalseandmisleadingcommunications.

Thefirstaspectoftheplaintiff’sallegationsagainstthedirectorswasthattheyallegedlyapprovedfalseandmisleadingAustralianStockExchangeannouncementsaboutanindependentfoundationestablishedtocoverfuturedamagesclaimsforasbestosrelateddiseases.Thestatementsindicatedthefoundationwasfullyfundedandhadthecapacitytomeetallfuturelegitimateasbestosclaims.Theplaintiffallegedtheboard’sapprovaloffalseormisleadingstatementscontravenedsection180(1)oftheCorporations Act.Itfurtherallegedthatoneexecutivedirectorhadbreachedsection181(1)byfailingtoexercisehispowersanddischargehisdutiesingoodfaith,inthebestinterestsofthecorporation,andforaproperpurpose.

Thesecondaspectoftheplaintiff’sallegationsfocussedonamemorandumsenttomembersofJHILconcerningtheavailabilityofpartlypaidsharestomeetJHIL’sliabilities.ThememostatedthatthepartlypaidshareswouldallowJHILtocallontheresourcesofnewDutchholdingcompany,JamesHardieIndustriesNV(“JHINV”),ifitrequiredfundstomeetliabilities.Theplaintiffallegedthisstatementwasfalseormisleadingbecausetheboardknewthe

1. Examination and clarification of the differences between the statutory duties imposed on executive and non-executive directors

40

acompensationorderfor$92millioninfavourofOne.Tel(inliquidation),alongwithordersbanningthedefendantsfrommanagingacorporationforappropriateperiods.

ThiscasewasoneofthelargestciviltrialsintheCourt’shistory.Itwasheardover232days;involved67publishedinterlocutoryjudgments;generated16,000pagesoftranscript,andthepartieshandedupmorethan18volumesoffinalwrittensubmissions.

ASIC’scaseagainstthedefendantshingedupondemonstratingthat:

• thetruefinancialpositionoftheOne.TelGroupinthefourmonthsprecedingitscollapsewasmuchworsethanthatconveyedtotheboardofdirectors;

• financialforecastsprovidedtotheboardandthemarketthroughmediareleases,particularlyfortheperiodtoJune2001,hadnoproperbasis,and

• thedefendantswereeitherawareofthepoorfinancialposition(oratleastoughttohavebeen),anddeliberatelywithheldtheseissuesfromtheboard.

Insupportofitsclaims,ASICpresentedtheCourtwiththreecategoriesofdocuments:theAustralianfixedwire/serviceprovidermanagementaccounts;theAustralianagedcreditorreports,andcollectionprofilesummaries.JusticeAustinfoundthesedocumentsfailedtowithstandclosescrutiny,andwereonthewholetoounreliabletoformthebasisforsuchbroadfinancialfindings.ThisunreliabilitywascompoundedbyASIC’sfailuretobringforwardwitnessestoexplainthesecontentiousdocumentsandgiveevidenceastotheirstatus.

ASICwasalsounabletosufficientlyadvanceitscasethroughother,lesscontentiousevidence.Thedefendantswereconsistentlyabletoprovidealternate,plausibleexplanationsforwhatASICallegedhadoccurred.Also,theCourthadtorejectmanyofASIC’ssubmissionsastheystrayedoutsidethescopeofitspleading.AllthesefactorscompromisedASIC’sabilitytoproveitscasetotheappropriatecivilstandard.

Ultimately,JusticeAustinfoundthatASICfailedtoestablishthateitherdefendanthadbreachedthe

MrMacdonaldhadtheopportunitytoamendthestatementbeforeitspublicationandhisfailuretoremovethefalseormisleadingmaterialconstitutedanothercontraventionofsection180(1).HisHonouralsofoundthatMrMacdonald’sverbalrepititionofthefalseandmisleadingfinancialprojectionsatseveralroadshowpresentationswasyetanotherbreachofsection180(1).

However,JusticeGzellrejectedtheplaintiff’sallegationsthatMrMacdonaldhadbreachedsection181(1)oftheAct.HisHonourheldthatsection181(1)isonlycontravenedwhenadirectorknowinglyengagesinconductcontrarytoacompany’sinterests.WhileMrMacdonaldmayhaveexercisedpoorjudgmentinpromotingtheestablishmentofthefoundationtotheextenthedid,theevidencedidnotestablishanyimproperorcollateralmotivation.

Theplaintiffwasalsounsuccessfulinitsclaimsregardingthememorandumonpartlypaidshares.Theplaintiff’sallegationrestedonprovingthatatthetimethedirectorsapprovedthememo,theyknewthepartlypaidshareswouldbecancelled,orassumedthatthiswouldhappen.JusticeGzellcouldnotfindanyevidencetosupportthisintentionorassumption;therefore,thememorandumwasneitherfalsenormisleading.Noneoftheexecutiveornon-executivedirectorswerefoundtohavebreachedsection180(1)inthisrespect.

bench:GzellJCitation: AustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommissionvMacdonald(No11)[2009]NSWSC287[2009]ALMD5385;27ACLC522;71ACSR368;256ALR199;230FLRJudgment date:23April2009

2. Australian Securities and Investments Commission v Rich MrRichandMrSilbermann(“thedefendants”)wererespectivelytheformerJointManagingDirectorandFinanceDirectorofOne.Tel,alargeAustralianlistedcompanythatcollapsedinMay2001.TheAustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommission(“ASIC”)allegedthatthedefendantscontravenedsection180oftheCorporationsAct(2001)(Cth).Thissectionimposesacivilpenaltyonanycompanydirectororofficershowntohavebreachedhisorherstatutorydutyofcareanddiligence.ASICsought

41

greatlyexceedingtheleveluponwhichtheBerjayaCompaniesfelttheyhadagreed.

Inaletterdated9September2004,MrAriffindicatedtotheBerjayaCompanies,themajorcreditors,thathewouldonlyseektorecoverhisfutureremunerationfromDeedFundNumber1,anaccountestablishedunderthedeedsofcompanyarrangement.Underthedeed,thisaccountcouldonlybeusedtopayMrAriff’sremunerationwithrespecttothepreparation,approvalandimplementationoftheDeed.AnyfeesordisbursementsMrAriffaccruedafter9September2004werenottoberecoveredfromDeedFundNumber1.ThisletterwasissuedinexchangefortheBerjayaCompanies’undertakingthattheywouldsupportMrAriff’sclaimforremunerationpayablesincehisappointmentasadministratoruntilthedateoftheletter,aperiodofroughlyninemonths.

AlthoughMrAriffdidnotconcedeheagreedtotheconditionsconveyedintheletter,JusticeBarrettfoundintheplaintiffs’favour.HisHonourheldthattherepresentationcontainedintheletterinducedtheBerjayaCompaniestoexpectthatMrAriffwoulddrawremunerationsolelyfromDeedFundNumber1,andthathewouldrefrainfromresortingtootherassetsoftheCarloversCompanies.MrAriffdidnothingtowarntheBerjayaCompaniesthatheintendedtodepartfromhisrepresentation.

JusticeBarrettalsoheldthat,whileMrAriff’srepresentationwasmadetotheBerjayacompaniesonly,theestoppelintheirfavourshouldextendtotheremaining10%ofshareholdersandcreditorswithaninterestintheCarloversCompanies.HisHonourmadeordersundersection447AoftheCorporations Act confirmingthatthedeedsofcompanyarrangementaretooperateandMrAriffmustlimithisremunerationconsistentwithhisrepresentationsmadeintheletterof9September2004.

AlittlemorethantwomonthsafterJusticeBarrettmadetheseorders,MrAriffappearedbeforeJusticeBerginfortheconclusionoftheASICcase.TheASICcasecommencedin2008followinganinvestigationASICundertookin2007.ThisinvestigationencompassedMrAriff’sconductastheliquidatorof16companies,includingtheCarloversCompanies.TheinvestigationledASICtoconcludethatMrAriffwasnotfaithfullyperforming

statutorydutyofcareanddiligencethatsection180oftheCorporationsActimposes.JusticeAustinfoundthat,althoughASIC’scontentionshadsomesuperficialappeal,theyweretimeandagainshowntobeunpersuasivewhentheunderlyingfinancialdetailwasinvestigated.

Withrespecttocosts,JusticeAustin’spreliminaryviewwasthatcostsshouldbeawardedonaparty/partybasis,asagreedorassessed.On5February2010,JusticeAustinorderedASICtopaythedefendants’legalcostsquantifiedatnearly$14million.

bench: AustinJCitation:AustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommissionvRich[2009]NSWSC1229;75ACSR1;236FLR1Judgment date: 18November2009

3. berjaya Group (Aust) Pty Ltd v Ariff; Australian Securities and Investments Commission v AriffThesetwocasesfocussedontheconductofthesameAdministrator,MrAriff.Thefirstcase,the“Berjayacase”,concernedMrAriff’sattemptstosubvertrestrictionsonhisremunerationunderadeedofcompanyarrangement.MrAriff’sconductinthisregardledtohimbeingdeniedasubstantialportionofhisclaimedremunerationasanadministrator.TheevidencethatemergedfromtheBerjayacaseregardingMrAriff’sconductandchargingpracticesgaverise,inpart,tothesecondcase:the“ASICcase”.ThiswasanapplicationbytheAustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentCommission(ASIC)fortheCourttoexerciseitssupervisorypowersundertheCorporations Act 2001(Cth).

IntheBerjayacase,theplaintiffsweretwogroupsofrelatedcompaniesreferredtocollectivelyastheBerjayaCompaniesandtheCarloversCompanies.TheBerjayaCompanieswerethemajorshareholder(97%)andcreditor(90%)intheCarloversCompanies.MrAriffwasappointedtheadministratoroftheCarloversCompaniesunderadeedofcompanyarrangementpursuanttoPart5.3AoftheCorporations Act.Underthisarrangement,theCarloversCompaniesweretoremunerateMrAriff.ThedisputebeforetheCourtaroseafterMrAriffclaimedremuneration

42

4. Caterpillar of Australia Pty Ltd v Industrial Court of New South Wales MrGoughandMrGilmourweretheownersandseniorexecutivesofthesecondrespondent,acompany(collectively“GoughandGilmour”).Caterpillar,theapplicant,enteredintothreeDealershipAgreementswiththesecondrespondentin1991forthesaleandservicingoftheapplicants’constructionandminingequipment.TheDealershipAgreements,alongwiththeLastResortPolicyandtheFourthAssurance,formedanOverallArrangement.TherewasabreakdownintherelationshipbetweenCaterpillarandGoughandGilmourthatleadtoCaterpillartoterminatethearrangements.

GoughandGilmourinstitutedproceedingsundersection106oftheIndustrial Relations Act 1996intheIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales.JusticeBolandheldthatthecontractualarrangementwasunfairandmadeordersvaryingit.CaterpillarunsuccessfullychallengedthejurisdictionoftheIndustrialCourt,andappealedthatholdingtotheFullBenchwhichalsodismissedit.

CaterpillartheninvokedthesupervisoryjurisdictionoftheCourtofAppealpursuanttosections58(2)and69oftheSupreme Court Act1970,principallychallengingthejurisdictionoftheIndustrialCourttoorderthevariationofthecontractualarrangementspursuanttosection106(1).

TheChiefJustice(PresidentAllsopandJusticeTobiasagreeing)heldthatthereisasignificantdistinctionbetweenthesupervisoryjurisdictionofasuperiorcourtofgeneraljurisdiction,suchastheCourtofAppeal,andasuperiorcourtoflimitedjurisdiction,suchastheIndustrialCourt.TheCourtnotedthatdecisionswithrespecttojurisdictionalerrorbycourtscreatedunderChIIIoftheConstitutionareinstructivebutmustbetreatedwithcare.

Intheinterpretationofsection106(1),theCourtheldthatacourtisrequiredtohaveregardtothecontextinwhichwordsappear,without

hisdutiesasaninsolvencypractitioner,andthathisconductwascontrarytotheinterestsofcreditorsormembersofacompany.ASICapproachedtheCourtforordersundersections447Eand536oftheCorporations Act. UnderSection536,theCourtmayconductaninquiryintothematter,conductanexaminationoftheliquidator,andmakeanyordersitconsidersappropriateandjust,includingcompensation.

AftercontestingASIC’sclaimsforayear,MrAriffadmittedtothe83allegationsofmisconductlevelledagainsthim.Indoingso,MrAriffadmittedtochargingtheCarloversCompaniesforoverseastravelforhimselfandhisfamily,includingtravelexpensesandaccommodationchargesoveraperiodof4years.ThosetravelexpenseshadnothingtodowiththebusinessoftheCarloversCompanies.MrAriffalsoadmittedthathehadpaidfamilymemberslargeamountsofthecompanies’money,amountsthatheclaimedtobeforservicestothecompany,butinrealityhadnothingtodowiththeCarloverscompanies.MrAriffalsoadmittedtofailurestoproperlyadministernumerousothercompaniesandmakingunauthorisedandimproperpaymentstohimself.

MrAriffconsentedtodeclarationsinrelationtothe16companiestowhomhehadnotfaithfullyperformedhisdutiesasaliquidator,andmanagedinamannercontrarytotheinterestsofcreditorsandmembers.MrAriffalsoconsentedtoadeclarationthathewasunfittoholdtheofficeofliquidatorandthathebeprohibitedfromholdingthatofficeandagreedtopaycompensationtothecompanieshehadmismanaged.

FollowingMrAriff’sadmissions,JusticeBerginorderedthatMrAriffbeprohibitedforlifefromholdingtheofficeofofficialliquidator,registeredliquidator,liquidator,provisionalliquidator,voluntaryadministrator,administratorofadeedofcompanyarrangement,orcontroller.HerHonouralsoorderedthathepaycompensationtotalling$4.9milliontothe16companieshehadmismanaged.

bench: BarrettJ;BerginCJinEqCitations:BerjayaGroup(Aust)PtyLtdvAriff[2009]NSWSC569;AustralianSecuritiesandInvestmentsCommissionvAriff[2009]NSWSC829Judgment dates: 18June2009;18August2009

4. Considers the scope of the Industrial Court of New South Wales’ jurisdiction under section 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996, and the Court of Appeal’s supervisory jurisdiction over the Industrial Court

43

authorisationof“statutorywills”.ThesesectionsempowertheCourttomake,alterorrevokethewillofapersonlackingtestamentarycapacity.Thecombinedjudgmentinthesetwomattersisthefirstofitskind,andassuch,offerssignificantguidanceontheproperinterpretationandapplicationoftheselegislationprovisions.

TheapplicantinFenwick wasthesolecarerofhisyoungerbrother,anadultmale.Theapplicant’sbrotherwasplacedinhiscareaftersustainingsevereheadinjuriesinaworkplaceaccident.Theseinjuriesrenderedtheapplicant’sbrotherincapableofalteringthewillhehadmade10yearsbeforehisaccident.TheapplicantaskedtheCourttoauthoriseastatutorycodiciltotheexistingwilltoincludehisbrother’schildrenassupplementarybeneficiaries.

Allthebeneficiariesintheexistingwillwereolderthantheapplicant’sbrother,andsomehadsufferedfromlife-threateningillnesses.Consequently,itwasconceivablethattheapplicant’sbrotherwouldoutliveallofhisbeneficiaries.Thiseventwouldresultinanintestacy,whichcouldtriggerthecompletetransferofthesizeableestatetotheCrown.Withouttheproposedcodicil,theapplicant’sbrother’schildrenmightbedeniedashareoftheirownfather’sestate.

TheapplicantinthematterofCharles wastheMinisterforCommunityServices.TheMinisterappliedfortheauthorisationofastatutorywillonbehalfofachildwhohadbeenpermanentlyincapacitatedfollowinginjuriesconsistentwith“shakenbabysyndrome”.Whilethechild’sparentswereneverchargedwiththeoffence,thesurroundingcircumstancesandtheirinabilitytoexplainthechild’sinjuriescreatedsuspicionsabouttheiractions.

Asitcurrentlystood,ifthechildweretodieintestate,hisestate–whichincludedasubstantialawardfromtheVictimsCompensationTribunalforhisinjuries–wouldgoinequalsharestohisparentsundersection61B(5)Probate and Administration Act 1898.UnderthestatutorywilltheMinisterproposed,thechild’sestatewouldinsteadpasson

theneedtofirstidentifyanambiguity.Assuch,thephrase“wherebyapersonperformsworkinanyindustry”mustbeinterpretedintheoverallindustrialcontextoftheIndustrial Relations Act 1996.Theintroductionofsection106(2A)confirmsthat“wherebyapersonperformsworkinanyindustry”mustbereadandunderstoodinanindustrialcontext.Thisisreinforcedbythesecondreadingspeeches.TheFullBenchfailedtogiveexpressregardinitsreasonstotheindustrialcontextofthelegislativescheme.

TheCourtconsideredatrilogyofrecentHighCourtdecisionsFish v Solution 6 Holdings Ltd[2006]HCA22;(2006)225CLR180;Batterham v QSR Ltd [2006]HCA23;(2006)225CLR237andOld UGC Inc v Industrial Relations Commission of New South Wales [2006]HCA24;(2006)225CLR274,inapplyings106(1).Thefirststepistodeterminewhetherapersonperformsworkinanyindustryandthesecondstepistoidentifythearrangementswherebythatworkisperformed.TheFullBenchdidnottakethisapproachandwasinerrorinfailingtofocusonthecontractualarrangementbetweenthesecondrespondentandMessrsGoughandGilmour.

Thefurtherawaytherelevantcontractorarrangementisfromsomethingresemblinganemployer/employeerelationship,thelesslikelythatitsatisfiesthestatutory‘hinge’insection106.TheFullBencherredinconcludingthatMessrsGoughandGilmourwereperformingworkinanindustry.Therewasno“industrial”elementoftheworktheyperformed.Theywereentrepreneurswhoconductedanenterpriseofsignificantscale.Insofarastheyperformedwork,theydidnotperformitconsequenceoftheDealershipAgreementsortheOverallArrangement.Section106(2A)wasnotsatisfiedandcouldnotbeusedasabasistovarytheLastResortPolicyortheFourthAssurance.

bench:SpigelmanCJ;AllsopP;TobiasJACitation: CaterpillarofAustraliaPtyLtdvIndustrialCourtofNewSouthWales[2009]NSWCA83Judgment date: 17April2009

5. Fenwick, Re; Application of J R Fenwick & Re Charles ThesetwoapplicationsrequiredtheCourttoexerciseitspowersundersections18to26oftheSuccession Act 2006, whichconcernthe

5. Interpretation and application of previously untested statutory will provisions in the Succession Act 2006

44

wassufficientbasisforthetrialjudgetoorderaninquiry,butonre-exercisingthediscretiondeclinedtoorderaninquiryinlightofthecircumstances.

Ininterpretingsection536,thecourtindicatedthattherangeofcomplaintsunders536(1)(b)isnotconfinedbysection536(1)(a),decliningtofollowVink v Tuckwell [2008]VSC100.Section536requirestheapplicanttodemonstratesomethingabouttheliquidator’sperformanceofdutiesthatisasufficientbasisformakinganorderforinquiry,buttheredoesnotneedtobeaprimafacieevidentiarycase.Ultimately,thecourthasadiscretiontoorderaninquiry,whichitmustexerciseinaccordancewithitssupervisoryroleofliquidationproceedings.Initsreasons,theCourtindicatedthatthereisnolesserdegreeofsupervisionofliquidatorssimplybecausetheyarenotcourt-appointedliquidators.

JusticeHodgsonandJusticeAustinheldthatacomplaintundersection536(1)(b)needonlybeacriticismexpressedtothecourt,inanycontext,withrespecttothefulfilmentoftheliquidator’sduties.Thereisnospecificformofcomplaintrequiredunderthatsection,orunderrule7.11(1)oftheSupreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999wherethecomplainantisalreadybeforethecourt.

TheChiefJusticeheldthatsection536(1)(b)requiresaformalrequesttothecourttomakeaninquiry,andthatalternativelyrule7.11(1)oftheSupreme Court (Corporations) Rules 1999imposesamandatoryprocessformakingacomplaintundersection536(1)(b)bywayoforiginatingprocess.

TheCourtcommentedontherelationshipbetweensections536(1)and536(3)andonthefactorsrelevanttotheexerciseofdiscretiontoorderaninquiryundersection536.Itwasnotnecessarilyimproperforaliquidatortopursuelitigationwiththeaidoflitigationfundingevenincircumstanceswhererecoveryofmoniesforcreditorswasunlikely.However,aprimafacieviewbythetrialjudgethatthecostofproceedingswasdisproportionatetothemaximumpossiblerecoveryandthatthe

tohissister,ortovariouscharitableorganisationsshouldshepredeceasehim.

JusticePalmerauthorisedbothapplications.HisHonourwassatisfiedthatthepersonswhowouldotherwisehavebeenentitledtoadministertheestatesuponintestacy(intheabsenceofthestatutorycodicilorwill)didnotobjecttotheapplications.JusticePalmeralsoexaminedhistoricalantecedentstostatutorywillsinotherjurisdictionsdomesticallyandabroad,beforeultimatelydecidingNewSouthWalesshouldinsteadstartwitha“cleanslate”.

HisHonouralsoanalysedtherequirementsofsections18to22oftheAct,withparticularemphasisontheinterpretationofsection22(b).Thissectionrequiredexaminationofwhethertheproposedwill,alterationorrevocationwas,orwasreasonablylikelytobe,onethatthepersonwouldhavemadeifheorshehadtestamentarycapacity.Importantly,JusticePalmeridentifiedthesignificanceoftheperson’ssubjectiveintention inthethreecircumstancesinwhichtheCourtwouldinevitablyberequiredtoapplysection22(b):intentioninalostcapacitycase;intentioninanilcapacitycase,andintentioninapre-emptedcapacitycase.

bench:PalmerJCitation: Fenwick,Re;ApplicationofJRFenwick&ReCharles[2009]NSWSC530Judgment date: 12June2009

6. hall v Poolman Theliquidatorsoftwocompaniesinvoluntarywindingupcommencedrecoveryproceedingsagainsttwodirectorsofthecompanies,inaccordancewithanagreementwithalitigationfunder.Thelikelihoodofsecuringareturnforcreditorswasremote.Thedirectorsarguedthattheyshouldnotbeheldliableundersections1317Sand1318ofthe Corporations Act whensolittle,ifany,oftheproceedsofthelitigationwouldgotocreditors.Thatsubmissionwasunsuccessfulbutthetrialjudgeorderedaninquirypursuanttosections536(1)(a),536(1)(b)and536(3)ofthe Corporations Act.

IntheCourtofAppeal,theliquidatorschallengedthedecisiontoorderaninquiry.Theappealproceededwithoutacontradictor.TheChiefJustice,JusticeHodgsonandJusticeAustinheldthatthere

6. Clarifies the obligations on liquidators charged with undertaking recovery proceedings in which the likelihood of securing a return for creditors is remote

45

JusticeMcDougallconsideredthecommonlawprinciplesgoverningapatient’srightofself-determination.TwoestablishedyetconflictingthemesemergedfromHisHonour’sexplorationofthecommonlaw:

• thatacompetentadulthastherightofself-determinationoverhisorherbody;and

• thattheStatehasaninterestinprotectingandpreservingthelivesandhealthofitscitizens.

JusticeMcDougallwascarefultoclarifythatinthiscasetheCourtwasnotbeingaskedtoconsideranysuchnotionas“therighttodie”but,rather,torecogniseacompetentindividual’srighttorefusemedicaltreatment,evenifdeathmayresultfromthatdecision.

JusticeMcDougallconcludedthatthecourtshouldstartbyrespectingthepropositionthatacompetentindividual’srighttoself-determinationprevailsovertheState’sinterestinthepreservationoflife,eventhoughtheindividual’sexerciseofthatrightmayresultinhisorherdeath.IfanACDismadebyacapableadult,isclearandunambiguous,andextendstothesituationathand,itshouldberespected.Avalidrefusalmaybebaseduponreligious,socialormoralgrounds.Itmaybevalidevenifthereasonsareapparentlyirrational,unknownornon-existent.WhilstthecourtshouldundertakeacarefulanalysisofanACD,anover-carefulscrutinyofthematerialmaywellhavetheeffectofunderminingorevennegatingtheexerciseoftherightofself-determination.

However,hisHonouracknowledgedthattherewouldbesituationsinwhichtheCourtshouldquestionthevalidityandoperationofanACD.ButhisHonouremphasisedthatthesecircumstancesshouldbeconfinedto:

• wherethepersonisnotcompetentinlawtogiveorrefuseconsent;

• wheretheconsentorrefusalofconsentisobtainedbyundueinfluence;

• wheretheapparentconsentorrefusalofconsentdoesnotextendtotheparticularsituation;

• wherethetermsoftheconsentorrefusalofconsentareambiguous/uncertain;

proceedingscouldhavebeenconductedatasignificantlylowercost,wasasufficientbasistoorderaninquiry.

However,thereisnorequirementthatliquidatorsshouldroutinelyapproachthecourtsbeforeenteringintoalitigationfundingagreementanditisrelevanttoconsiderthepublicinterestintheproceedingsasafactorinthecourt’sexerciseofdiscretion.Infailingtoaccountforthesevariousfactorsappropriately,thetrialjudge’sexerciseofdiscretionmiscarried.

Inre-exercisingthediscretion,theCourtheldthattheredidnotappeartobeanyutilityinorderinganinquiry,inlightofthefactthatcostshadbeensettledandtheAustralian Securities and Investments Commissionhaddeclinedtoappearintheproceedings.

bench:SpigelmanCJ;HodgsonJA;AustinJCitation: HallvPoolman[2009]NSWCA64;254ALR333228;FLR16471;ACSR13975;NSWLR99Judgment date:31March2009

7. hunter and New England Area health Service v A by his tutor t

TheseproceedingsrequiredtheCourttodetermineifthedefendant’srefusaltoreceivemedicaltreatmentwasavalidexerciseofhisrightofself-determination.

On1July2009,thedefendant(“MrA”),wasadmittedintotheemergencydepartmentofahospitaladministeredbytheplaintiff(“theService”).MrAwassufferingfromsepticshockandrespiratoryfailureandinastateofdiminishedconsciousness.Hisconditiongraduallyworsened,andwithinafortnightMrAwasbeingkeptalivebymechanicalventilationandkidneydialysis.

On14July2009,theServicebecameawareofadocumentapparentlypreparedbyMrAayearearlier.ThedocumentindicatedthatMrAwouldrefusedialysis.ItwassubsequentlydiscoveredthatMrA’srefusaltoreceivedialysismostlikelystemmedfromhisreligiousbeliefs(MrAwasamemberoftheJehovah’sWitnesscongregation).TheServicesoughtdeclarationsfromtheCourtthatMrA’sdocumentwasavalid“AdvanceCareDirective”(“ACD”),andthatitwouldbejustifiedincomplyingwithhisrefusaltoreceivedialysis.

7. Guidance on the considerations for courts when determining an individual’s right of self-determination

46

process.IntheCourtofAppeal,Jamesonsoughttohavethosetwoorderssetaside.

TheChiefJustice(PresidentAllsopandJusticeIppagreeing)heldthatMrJusticeYoung’sdecisionwasanexerciseofthediscretionto“otherwiseorder”underrule7.4(2),andassuchshouldbereviewedintheCourtofAppealusingtheHouse v The King(1936)55CLR499approach,thatis,withdeferencetothetrialjudge’sdiscretion.

TheCourtofAppealheldthathisHonourfailedtotakeintoaccountorgivesufficientweighttoissueswhichwouldbecommontoallcases.TheseincludedtheissueoftherequiredcontentofaProductDisclosureStatement,haditbeenprovided,whichwouldlikelyinvolvesignificantcontestbetweentheparties.

HisHonouralsoerredinfindingthatthe“optin”natureoftherepresentativeactionweighedagainsttheproceedingscontinuingasrepresentativeproceedings.Rule7.4(2)oftheUCPRprovidesflexibilityandnoonesystemofrepresentativeproceedingsisnecessarilytobepreferredoveranother.Additionally,theFederalCourtschemeisnotapplicabletotheUCPRscheme.

Finally,theCourtofAppealindicatedthatitwasimportanttogiveweighttothesignificantaccesstojusticeissuesarisinginrepresentativeproceedings.Itwaslikelythatlitigationcostswouldhavepreventedtheactionproceedingsasaseriesofindividualcases.Courtsshouldgiveproperweighttotheaccesstojusticealitigationfundermightprovidetopeopleunabletoindividuallybeartherisksoflitigation.

bench: SpigelmanCJ;AllsopP;IppJACitation: JamesonvProfessionalInvestmentServicesPtyLtd[2009]NSWCA28;72NSWLR281;253ALR515Judgment date: 25February2009

• wheretheconsentorrefusalofconsenthasnotbeenmadeinresponsetotheprovisionofadequateinformationregardingthebenefitsoftreatmentandthedangersconsequentonrefusal.

Otherexceptionstothegeneralrightofanindividualtorefusemedicaltreatmentmayarisewheretheindividual’srefusaltoreceivetreatmentcompromisesthewidercommunity’shealth,orwherecarryingoutthepatient’swisheswillleadtothedeathofaviablefoetus.

JusticeMcDougallultimatelyconcludedthatMrA’sdocumentrepresentedaconsidereddecision,andthatwhenMrAmadethatdecision,hehadthelegalcapacitytoso.JusticeMcDougallalsofoundtherewasnoevidencetosuggestMrA’sexpressionofintentwassubjecttoundueinfluence,orthatitwasinanywayunclearoruninformed.HisHonourdeclaredthattheACDwasvalidandthatServicewouldbejustifiedinceasingdialysis.

bench: McDougallJCitation: HunterandNewEnglandAreaHealthServicevAbyhistutorT [2009]NSWSC761;74NSWLR88Judgment date: 6August2009

8. Jameson v Professional Investment Services Pty Ltd Jamesonsoughttobringarepresentativeactionunderrule7.4oftheUniform Civil Procedure Rules(‘UCPR’),onbehalfofagroupofinvestorswhohadacquiredpromissorynotesfromacompanyinliquidationwithintheWestpointGroupofcompanies.JamesonallegedthateachinvestorobtainedthepromissorynotesonthebasisofrecommendationsmadebyauthorisedrepresentativesofProfessionalInvestmentServicesPtyLtd.Jamesonsubmittedthattheserecommendationsbreachedvariouscompanylawstatutoryduties,suchasfailuretoprovideaproductdisclosurestatement,failuretoprovideappropriateadvice,andmisrepresentation.

MrJusticeYoung,theChiefJudgeinEquityatthattime,madeanorderthattheproceedingsnotcontinueasrepresentativeproceedings.HisHonouralsorefusedtograntleavetoamendtheoriginating

8. Courts should give proper weight to the access to justice a litigation funder might provide to people unable to individually bear the risks of litigation

47

pointandintendeddestination,andthelesserlikelihoodoffaresinthatstreet.

JusticeHoebenacceptedthatthetestinBriginshaw v Briginshaw (1938)60CLR336settherelevantstandardofproofinthepresentcase.Inacircumstantialcase,itissufficientifthecircumstancesraiseamoreprobableinferenceinfavourofwhatisalleged.Applyingthistest,JusticeHoebenwassatisfiedthatthetaxibeingdrivenbyMrRwasindeedtheoneinvolvedintheaccident.DespiteMrR’sinsistencetothecontrary,JusticeHoebenwassatisfiedthatthemostlogicalrouteforMrRtotakewouldseehimdrivedirectlypastthesceneoftheaccident.Secondly,MrR’srefusalofworkinthatlocationfollowingthetimeoftheaccident,butlateracceptanceofajobelsewhere,raisedaninferencethatsomethingunusualoruntowardhadoccurredinthatparticularlocation.Finally,theexclusionofothertaxismadeitimprobablethatanothertaximatchingthedescriptionofMrA’staxiwasinthelocationoftheaccidentatthetime.

JusticeHoebenawardedMrPenrosedamages,tobepaidbyMrAasassessed.HisHonouralsoorderedMrAtopaybothMrPenrose’sandtheNominalDefendant’scosts.

bench: HoebenJCitation:PenrosevNominalDefendant&Anor[2009]NSWSC1187Judgment date: 12November2009

10. R v borkowski ThiswasaCrownappealchallengingtheadequacyofasentencedeliveredinthePenrithDistrictCourt.TheCrownsubmittedthatthetrialjudge’ssentencewasmanifestlyinadequate.Amongotherthings,theCrownarguedthatthetrialjudgeerredwhenheappliedthemaximumallowablediscounttoasentenceinrecognitionofMrBorkowski’s(therespondent’s)guiltyplea.TheCourt’sjudgmentinthisCrownappealoffersguidanceontheprinciplesthatshouldgovernasentencingjudge’sapplicationofthe“utilitariandiscount”foranearlypleaofguilty.Althoughthisguidancewasnotstrictlyrequired

9. Penrose v Nominal defendant & AnorThiscaserequiredtheCourttodeterminewhethercircumstantialevidenceinacivilcasecanleadtoafindingofseriousmisconductagainstadefendant.

Theplaintiff,MrPenrose,sufferedcatastrophicinjuriesinamotoraccident.MrPenrosehadattemptedtogetintoataxiwhenitdroveaway.MrPenrosewasdraggedfromthemovingvehicleforover300mbeforefallingaway.Thetaxidroveawaywithoutstopping.AsneitherMrPenrosenoranywitnesscouldidentifythetaxiordriverinvolved,theproceedingswerecommencedagainsttheNominalDefendant.FollowinginquiriesbytheNominalDefendant,MrPenroseaddedtheseconddefendant,knownasMrA,theownerofthetaxithoughttobeinvolvedintheaccident.

Themainissueinthecasewaswhether,onthebalanceofprobabilities,MrA’staxiwastheoneinvolvedintheaccident.WhiletherewasnodirectevidencetodefinitivelyproveMrA’staxiwasinvolved,itwasthesamemakeandmodel,hadthesamedistinguishingfeaturesdescribedbywitnesses,andwasconsistentinappearancewiththetaxicapturedinCCTVfootageoftheaccident.

GPSdatafromMrA’staxishoweditwasinthevicinityoftheaccidentbothshortlybeforeandaftertheaccident.ComputerrecordsalsoshowedthatthedriverofMrA’staxirefusedanotherjobintheaccident’svicinitythatnight,butacceptedworkinadifferentareasoonafter.

TheNominalDefendantintroducedevidenceinanefforttoexcludeothertaxisofthesamemakeandmodelactiveatthetimeoftheaccident.Althoughnotallsuchtaxiscouldbeexcludedandtheevidencewasnotexhaustive,itwassufficienttoindicatetherewerefewothertaxisthatcouldhavebeeninvolvedintheincident.Therefore,itwasmoreprobablethannotthatMrA’staxiwastheoneinvolvedintheaccident.

ThedriverofMrA’staxiatthetimeoftheaccident,knownasMrR,insistedhewasnotinvolvedintheaccident.MrRtestifiedthathecouldnotrememberwhetherornothedrovethetaxipastthesceneoftheaccident.WhenpresentedwithGPSdataplacinghimnearthescene,MrRrefusedtoaccepthewouldlogicallyhavedrivendownthestreetinwhichtheaccidenttookplacegivenhisdeparture

9. Examination of the required standard of proof in a civil proceedings for a finding serious misconduct on purely circumstantial evidence

48

arraignment,andnotatcommittalstageorsooner,cannotjustifyadiscountgreaterthanthisunlessthereareexceptionalcircumstances.However,duetoseveralerrorsbytheCrown,includingerroneouslyconcedingatMrBorkowski’ssentencethatthediscountshouldbe20–22.5percent,theCourtdetermineditshouldnotinterfereinthisinstanceandultimatelydismissedtheCrown’sappeal.

bench: McClellanCJatCLat1;SimpsonJat2;HowieJat5Citation: RvBorkowski[2009]NSWCCA102;195ACrimR1;52MVR528;[2009]ALMD4819;[2009]ALMD4858Judgment date:15April2009

11. R v bW & SW ThiscaserequiredtheCourttodetermineanappropriatesentenceforamother(“SW”)andfather(“BW”)foundtoberesponsibleforthedeathoftheir7-year-olddaughter,Ebony.

Ebonywasfounddeadinherbedroomon3November2007.Apostmortemexaminationrevealedsheweighedonlyninekilogramsandshehadbeenthevictimofprolongedandextremeneglect.

ThejuryfoundSWguiltyofEbony’smurder.Indoingso,thejuryacknowledgedSWdeliberatelyfailedtoensureEbonyreceivedadequatenourishmentormedicalattentionreflecting,atworst,anintentiontokillEbony,orattheveryleast,arecklessindifferencetoherlife.ThejuryfoundBWguiltyofthelesseralternatechargeofmanslaughterthroughcriminalnegligence.ThejuryconfirmedthatBWhadbreachedhisdutyofcarebyfailingtoensureEbonyreceivedadequatenourishmentormedicalattention,andthatthisbreachhadcontributedtoherdeath.

Beforedeterminingappropriatesentences,JusticeRAHulmechronicledattributesofEbony’sshortlifethatofferedinsightintotheoffenders’ultimateresponsibilityforherdeath,andthegravityoftheiroffences.

Bytheageoffive,Ebonywasdiagnosedwithglobaldevelopmentaldelayandautism.TheseconditionsincreasedEbony’svulnerabilityandreducedhercapacitytodefendherselfagainstherparents’escalatingneglect.Althoughtherewasconsiderableevidencetosuggestapatternofparentalneglect

todeterminetheappeal,itreflectstheCourt’sgrowingawarenessthatdecisionshandeddowninsomecriminalcourtsdidnotreflectestablishedsentencingprinciples.

The“utilitariandiscount”isamathematicallyappliedreductiontothesentenceofapersonwhohaspleadedguiltytoanoffence.Therateofdiscountrangesfromtento25percent,anddependsuponvariousfactors,principallythetimeatwhichthepleaofguiltywasentered.

TherespondentpleadedguiltyonarraignmentintheDistrictCourttotwochargesofmanslaughterfollowingastreet-racingincident.ThetrialjudgesentencedMrBorkowskitonineyears’imprisonment,withaminimumperiodofsixyearstobeservedfromthedatehewascharged.Thispenaltyincludeda25percentdiscountforpleadingguiltyatthecommencementofhisarraignmentinthePenrithDistrictCourt.Thetrialjudgeindicatedtherewasalocalpracticeatthatparticularcourtwherebypeoplewhoenteredapleaofguiltyonarraignmentwerealwaysawardedthemaximumdiscount.

TheCourtheldthatthediscounttobeappliedforapleaofguiltydoesnotdependupontheadministrativearrangementsorpracticeofaparticularcourtorjudge.TheCourtreinforcedtheneedfortheState’scriminalcourtstoapplythediscountinaccordancewithsentencingprinciplessetoutinstatute,andsupplementedbythedecisionsoftheappellatecourts.

TheCourtprovidedasummaryofthegeneralprinciplesapplicabletodeterminingtheappropriatediscount.Asamatterofgeneralpractice,themaximumdiscountshouldbeawardedonlytothoseaccusedpersonswhopleadguiltyintheLocalCourt,andcontinuethatpleainahighercourt.Theremaybeavalidreasonforawardingthemaximumdiscountwherethisdoesnotoccur,butthereasonwouldhavetobeexceptional.

InMrBorkowski’scase,theCourtfoundthatthetrialjudgeshouldnothaveappliedmorethana15percentdiscounttohissentence.TheCourtconsideredthatintheusualcase,apleaofguiltyon

10. Discusses the proper considerations when applying the utilitarian discount to an offender’s sentence

49

concludedSWwouldhavebeenwellawareofEbony’sdistressinherfinalweeks,yetstillchosetodonothingaboutit.HisHonourfoundthatnoneofSW’spersonalcircumstancesreducedherextremeculpabilityforEbony’sdeathandthatonlythemaximumsentenceoflifeimprisonmentwasappropriate.

bench:RAHulmeJCitation:RvBW&SW[2009]NSWSC1043Judgment date:2October2009

12. R v khazaal ThiscaserequiredtheCourttodetermineanappropriatesentenceforMrBelalKhazaal.MrKhazaalwasconvictedofknowinglymakingadocumentthatcouldbeusedtoassistinaterroristact,anoffenceundersection101.5(1)oftheCriminal Code (Cth).Themaximumsentenceforthisoffenceis15yearsimprisonment.

Between20and23September2003,MrKhazaaldownloadednumerousarticlesfromtheInternettoproduceabookentitled“ProvisionsontheRulesofJihad”.MrKhazaalmadesomeeditorialchangestothearticlesandaddedsomecommentaryofhisowntothebook.MrKhazaalsubsequentlysubmittedhisdocumenttoawebsitepossiblyendorsedbyalQaedainthehopethatitmightbepublishedonthatsite.

TheCrownallegedthatthefirsthalfofthebookadvancedreligiousorideologicaljustificationsfor“Jihad”,whilethesecondhalfprovidedpracticalguidancetoachievingmartyrdomanddestroyingthosewhowouldopposeoroppressIslam.Thebookincludedmaterialthatreferredtotargetingforeigngovernmentsandofficials,methodsofassassination,andthecommissionofactsofviolenceinthenameofrestoringthenationofIslam.

JusticeLathamconsideredtheobjectivegravityoftheoffenceinconsiderabledetail.HerHonourrejectedMrKhazaal’ssubmissionthatthejury’sfailuretofindheintendedtoincitethecommissionofaterroristactlessenedthegravityofhisoffence.HerHonouralsodeclinedtoacceptthattheCrown’sinabilitytodemonstratealinkbetweenMrKhazaal’sdocumentandthecommissionofanyspecificterroristactreducedtheobjectivegravityofhisoffence.Thevolume,detailandaccuracy

throughoutEbony’slife,thesituationdeterioratedsignificantlyinthefinal16monthsofherlife.Ebonywasaprisonerinherbedroomandexcludedfromfamilycelebrations.Theroominwhichshediedwasfilthyanddoubledashertoilet.Herbedroomwasdevoidofanyhouseholditemsexceptsoiledbedding,andtherewerenotoysinEbony’sroom.

WhileEbony’slivingconditionswouldhaveintensifiedherdistressleadinguptoherdeath,undoubtedlythesymptomsofchronicstarvationwerehergreatestsourceofsuffering.Expertmedicalevidenceindicatedthatsuchseveremalnutritioncouldonlyhaveresultedafterweeks,ormanymonths,ofstarvation.MedicalevidencealsoconfirmedthatextremehungerwouldhavepromptedbehaviouralchangesinEbony,andherdistressmusthavebeenobvioustoanyadultwhosawher.

BeforesentencingSWandBW,JusticeHulmeconsiderediftherewereanyfactorsthatmightamelioratetheirresponsibilityforEbony’sdeath.HisHonourrefusedtoacceptthattheirabuseofprescriptiondrugsprohibitedthemfromperceivingEbony’sdeterioratingcondition,orfromhavingthecapacitytodosomethingaboutit.WhileconcedingtheyshowedsomesignsofacceptingresponsibilityforEbony’sdeathandtherewaslittlechanceofeitherparentre-offending,hisHonourstressedtheneedforbothparents’sentencestocontainasignificantelementofgeneraldeterrence.

InsentencingBW,hisHonouracceptedhehadthelesserroleincaringforofEbonyandthathehadnotseenherwhenherdeathwasimminent.Nevertheless,BWstillfailedtointervenewithanyassistanceuponobservingherobviouslypoorconditionleadinguptoherdeath.HisHonourconcludedthatthedifferencebetweenthestandardofcarethatareasonablepersonwouldhaveexercised,andthatwhichBWexercised,wasvast.JusticeHulmefoundtheobjectivegravityofBW’soffencewaswithintheworstcategoryforthecrimeofmanslaughter.BWwassentencedto16years’imprisonment,withanon-paroleperiodof12years.

WhensentencingSW,HisHonourconsideredherestablishedphysicalandmentalhealthproblems,andclaimsthatBWwasphysicallyabusivetowardsher.Notwithstandingthesefactors,JusticeHulme

50

RachelPfitzner,waschargedwithDean’smurder,achargetowhichshepleadedguilty.

MsPfitznerhadonlyrecentlyresumedlimitedparentalcontactwithhersonfollowingacustodybattlewithDean’spaternalgrandmother.Asaresultoftheseproceedings,Dean’sgrandmotherretainedoverallcustodyofDean,butMsPfitznerwasawardedaccesstohersonfordefined,scheduledperiods.TheseinterimordersweremadeinJune2007.

AlthoughMsPfiznerwasinitiallypleasedtohaverenewedcontactwithherson,shebecameincreasinglyresentfulofDean’spresenceandreactedwithunjustifiableangertowardshim.MsPfitznertoldpeoplethatDeanremindedherofhisfather,amanwhowasviolenttowardsherduringthetimetheyweretogether.BruiseswereevidentonDean’sbodywhenhedied,andsomewitnessestestifiedthatMsPfitznerwouldhitDeanseveraltimesaday.TherewasalsoevidencethatDeanwasseverelyneglected,oftenorderedtoremainoutsideofthefamilialhomewhilepleadingtobeallowedinside.

InlateJuly2007,theoffenderdidnotreturnDeanafterascheduledaccessperiod.Dean’sgrandmothercommencedcourtproceedingsinanattempttocompelDean’sreturn.AhearingtodeterminethisissueintheFederalMagistrate’sCourtwasscheduledforlateSeptember2007,butsubsequentlyadjournedto11October2007.TherecoveryordermadeonthisdatewasnevergiveneffectasitcoincidedwiththedayMsPfitznerkilledherson.

JusticeHulmeconsideredtheobjectiveseriousnessofMsPfitzner’soffenceandwhetherthestandardnon-paroleperiodof25imprisonmentyearsshouldbeimposed.HisHonouracknowledgedthattheoffencewasunplannedandspontaneous.IthadoccurredinlightofMsPfitzner’sawarenessthatshewasunlikelytosucceedinthecustodyproceedingsandwasonthevergeofhavingtorelinquishhersontohisgrandmother’scare.WhileMsPfitznerhadundoubtedlyintendedtoharmherson,shehadnotwishedtokillhim.However,theoffencedidoccuraspartofacourseofongoingmistreatment,andtherewasnothingtosuggestMsPfitznerwasoperatingunderanymentalconditionthatreducedhermoralculpability.

ofthedocumentconcerningthecommissionofterroristacts,combinedwiththenatureandextentoftheharmitcouldcause,ledJusticeLathamtoconcludethattheoffencewasnotfarfromtheworstcategoryenvisagedunder101.5(1).Consequently,MrKhazaal’soffencecalledforasentenceclosetothemaximumpenalty.

JusticeLathamthenconsideredKhazaal’ssubjectivecircumstances.WhiletherewasevidencetosuggestMrKhazaalexhibitedsymptomsofanxietyanddepression,JusticeLathamconcludedthattheserelatedalmostwhollytothecircumstancesofhisarrest,chargeandconviction,anddidnotcontributetohiscommissionoftheoffence.Consequently,theimpositionofalessersentencethanotherwiseappropriatewasnotwarrantedforreasonsofillhealth.

JusticeLathamthenconsideredthequestionofcharacter.AfterconsideringsomeevidenceindicatingthatMrKhazaalhadbeenconvictedofseveralcriminaloffencesinLebanon,herHonourconcludedthatKhazaalcouldnotbeconsideredapersonofgoodcharacter.However,herHonourremarkedthattheissueofgoodcharacterwasofminimalsignificancetothissentencingexercisegiventheseriousnatureoftheoffence.HerHonouralsoconcludedthatMrKhazaal’slackofremorseandacknowledgementofhisextremistviews,togetherwithhisrepeatedattemptstounderplaytheseverityofhisoffence,reducedhisprospectsofrehabilitation.

JusticeLathamultimatelysentencedMrKhazaalto12yearsimprisonmentwithanon-paroleperiodof9years.

bench: LathamJCitation: RvKhazaal[2009]NSWSC1015Judgment date:25September2009

13. R v Pfitzner* InmidOctober2007,achild’sbodywasfoundfloatinginapond.Apostmortemexaminationrevealedthatthechild,Dean,haddiedfromasphyxiationseveraldaysbeforehisbodywasdisposedofinthepond.TheexaminationrevealedthatDeanhadbeenshaken,choked,andpossiblysuffocated,althoughtheexactmannerinwhichhewasasphyxiatedremainedunclear.Dean’smother,

51

Gloriaandadministeringhertreatment.GloriawasalsoseenoncebyotherhomeopathsduringatriptoIndiaseveralweeksbeforeherdeath.

Gloria’seczemaultimatelycoveredherentirebody.ItcausedGloriatobecomeseverelymalnourishedandshedevelopedaninfectioninherlefteye.Thetotalityofthesesymptomsculminatedinadisseminatedinfection,whichwasthedirectcauseofherdeath.AlthoughGloria’sparentshadtakenhertohospitalon5May2002(aweekaftertheirreturnfromIndia),herconditionbythattimewassuchthatmedicaltreatmentcouldnotsaveherlife.

TheOffenderswerechargedwiththeoffenceofmanslaughterbycriminalnegligence;thejuryfoundbothOffendersguiltyofthischarge.Implicitinthejury’sverdictswasafindingthattheconductoftheOffendersfellfarshortofthestandardofcareofGloriathatareasonablepersonwouldbeexpectedtoexerciseinresponsetothosecircumstances.Inpassingsentence,theCourthadtodeterminetheseriousnessofeachparent’soffence.

WhileitwasacceptedattrialthatbothOffendersowedadutyofcaretoGloriaas“reasonableparents”,anissuewaswhetherThomasSamowedaspecialdutyofcareasa“reasonablehomeopath”.Theevidencegivenbyhomeopathsduringthetrialuniversallyindicatedthathomeopathictreatmentcouldbetriedforaperiod,butifnoimprovementwasobserved,medicalassessmentwasnecessary.JusticeJohnsonconcludedthatMrSamdidinfactoweanadditionaldutyofcaretowardshisdaughterasahomeopath,andthathehadfallengravelyshortoftheexpectedstandardofcareinthisregard.Thisfinding,coupledwiththeevidencethatsuggestedMrSamplayedthedominantroleindeterminingthecourseofGloria’streatment,ledhisHonourtoultimatelyconcludethatThomasSam’soffencewasobjectivelymoreseriousthanthatofhiswife.

BeforesentencingtheOffenders,JusticeJohnsonacknowledgedthatanysentenceimposedmustconveyanelementofgeneraldeterrenceastheprotectionofchildrenisoffundamentalimportancetosociety.Thesentencehadtodemonstratethattheunlawfulhomicideofachild,particularlyatthehandsofthoseentrustedwiththatchild’scare,isacrimethatispunishedseverely.HisHonouralsofeltthesentenceofThomasSamshould

JusticeHulmestressedtheimportanceofgeneraldeterrenceinamatterinvolvingthemurderofayoungchild.HisHonourmadenofindingsinfavouroftheoffenderthatwouldsuggestshewasunlikelytore-offend,orthatshehadgoodprospectsofrehabilitation.MsPfitznerhadaconsiderablecriminalhistoryandwasevensubjecttoagoodbehaviourbondatthetimeofDean’sdeath.HerclearbreachofthisbondwasanaggravatingfactortobetakenintoaccountinhersentenceforDean’smurder.

Ultimately,havingtakenMsPfitzner’sguiltypleaintoaccountandassessingtheobjectiveseriousnessofheroffenceasbeingslightlybelowthemiddleoftherange,HisHonoursentencedMsPfitznertoatermofimprisonmentof25yearsandsixmonths.JusticeHulmedeterminedthenon-paroleperiodshouldbesetat19yearsandtwomonths.

bench:RAHulmeJCitation: RvPfitzner[2009]NSWSC1267Judgment date:9December2009*This decision is subject to an ongoing appeal.

14. R v thomas Sam; R v Manju SamThiscaserequiredtheCourttodetermineanappropriatesentenceforacouplefoundtobecriminallyresponsibleforthedeathoftheirinfantdaughter.

Thefactsthatgaverisetotheseproceedingswereasfollows.GloriaMaryThomaswasborntoThomasSamandManjuSam(“theOffenders”)on18July2001.BothGloria’sparentswerewell-educatedand,relevantly,herfatherThomaswasaqualifiedandpractisinghomeopath.InOctober2001,Gloriawasdiagnosedwitheczema.BetweenOctober2001andMay2002,Gloriadisplayedclearandmanifestsymptomsofeczema.Gloriadiedon8May2002,threedaysafterheradmissiontoSydneyChildren’sHospitalatRandwick.

Ashereczemaworsened,avarietyofmedicalprofessionalsinbothAustraliaandIndiasuggestedthatGlorianeededspecialisttreatmentfromadermatologist.TheOffendersrepeatedlychosetodisregardthisadvice,persistinginsteadwithhomeopathictreatment.Advicewasreceivedfromseveralhomeopaths,howeverThomasSamwastheonlyhomeopathinAustraliaactuallyexamining

52

containawarningtoalternativehealthprovidersabouttheconsequencesoffailingtoensureapatientreceivesconventionalmedicaltreatmentifalternativetreatmentsfail.AftertakingintoaccountthedelayinprosecutingtheOffenders,theeffecttheirincarcerationwouldhaveonthecouple’sotheryoungchildandothersubjectivematters,hisHonourheldthatfulltimeimprisonmentwastheonlyappropriatesentenceforbothOffendersinthecircumstances,withManjuSamtoreceiveashortersentencetoreflectherlessercriminality.

bench: JohnsonJCitation: RvThomasSam;RvManjuSam(No18)[2009]NSWSC1003Judgment date: 28September2009* This decision is the subject of an ongoing appeal.

15. Stewart v RonaldsMrStewartwasamemberoftheLowerHouseoftheNewSouthWalesParliament,andaMinisterandmemberoftheExecutiveCouncil.In2008,theLieutenant-GovernorwithdrewthecommissionsthatgaveeffecttohisMinisterialappointment,actingontherecommendationofthePremierofNewSouthWales.ThePremierhadprivatelyengagedMsRonalds,thedefendant,toinvestigateallegationsthatMrStewartbehavedimproperlytowardsafemalecolleague,andtoprepareareportofherfindingsfortablinginParliament.MsRonaldsfoundtheallegationswerejustified.ThePremiersubsequentlylostconfidenceinMrStewartandsoughthisremovalfromtheMinistryandtheExecutiveCouncil.

MrStewartcommencedproceedingsintheSupremeCourtallegingthattheLieutenant-Governor’sactionswerevoidfordenialofproceduralfairness.ThoseproceedingsweretransferredtotheCourtofAppealtodetermineseveralpreliminaryquestionsoflawthatraisedimportantConstitutionalquestionsastowhetherthedecisionsofthePremierandLieutenant-Governoraresubjecttojudicialreviewortheprinciplesofnaturaljustice.

PresidentAllsopremarkedthattheseissuesmust,alongwiththeConstitution Act1902itself,beexaminedagainstthebackgroundofresponsible

government.AfundamentalaspectofthesystemofresponsiblegovernmentinNewSouthWalesisthattheoperationoftheExecutiveisguidedbyParliament.Exceptforreservepowers,noexecutivepowershouldbeexercisedwithoutfirstreceivingadvicefromthegovernmentandwithoutrecognisingtheresponsibilityoftheExecutivetotheParliament.

TheCourtheldthattheLieutenant-Governoractedinaccordancewithss35C(2)and35E(2)oftheConstitution Act 1902 (NSW).section35oftheConstitution Act 1902enablestheGovernortoappointmembersoftheExecutiveCouncilandMinistersoftheState,providingthatanysuchappointmentis“attheGovernor’spleasure”.Notwithstanding,theCourtacknowledgedthatanysuchdecisionsareinherentlypolitical.Thephrase“attheGovernor’spleasure”reflectsthewidthofthepoliticalconsiderationsattendantupon,andcapableofinforming,thePremier’sadviceregardingtheMinistry’scomposition,andanydecisionsflowingfromthisadvice.

IftheCourtweretoscrutinisethePremier’sadvicetotheLieutenant-GovernorregardingthecompositionoftheMinistry,thiswouldbetantamounttoreviewingthepoliticalprocess.ThisisnotafunctionoftheCourt,butthepreserveofParliament.

Additionally,thephrase“attheGovernor’spleasure”indicatesthattheGovernor(orLieutenant-Governor)andPremierowenodutyofproceduralfairnessinmakingappointmentdecisions.Inthiscontext,thephrasemeansthattheMrStewarthadnorighttobeheardbeforedismissalandthatnoreasonsareneeded;theofficeisterminableforgood,orbad,orno,reasons.

TheCourtdismissedtheappeal.

bench: AllsopP;HodgsonJA;HandleyAJACitation: StewartvRonalds[2009]NSWCA277Judgment date: 4September2009

15. The acts and decisions of the Premier and Lieutenant-Governor are outside the scope of judicial review

53

JusticeMcCallumacceptedthedoctors’submission.HerHonournotedthatsection601AGwasremedialinnature,creatingadiscretecauseofaction,notaclaimfordamages.JusticeMcCallumfoundthattheconditionsofrecoveryundersection601AGcouldbemetifitwereprovedatthetimeoffinalhearingthatthehospitalandthedoctorsweretortfeasorseachliabletotheplaintiffsandentitledtorecovercontributionfromeachother.ItwasnotnecessaryforthedoctorstoprovethatanyliabilitytheymayhavetotheplaintiffshadbeendeterminedbeforetheHospitalwasderegistered.

Withrespecttowhethertheinsurancecontract“coveredtheliability”,theInsurersubmittedthatitspolicyonlyindemnifiedtheHospitalforclaims“…forwhich[it]shallbecomelegallyliable…”.TheInsureragainrelieduponthenotionthatthecontractcouldonlycoveraliabilitythathadbeenestablishedbyajudgment,awardorsettlementinthenegligenceproceedingsbeforethederegistrationdate.Bycontrast,thedoctorscontendedthattheonlyquestiontheCourtneedaskwaswhetherthepolicyinplaceatthetimeofderegistrationcoveredtheHospitalinthecircumstancesthatgaverisetothenegligenceclaims.

JusticeMcCallumonceagainacceptedthedoctors’submissions.HerHonourconsideredittobereasonablyarguablethat,ifitisestablishedatafinalhearingthattheHospitalhadaliabilitytothedoctors,andthedoctorsestablishthatthepolicyrespondstothatliability,thedoctorswillhaveshownthatthepolicy“coveredthatliability”immediatelybeforederegistrationofthehospital.JusticeMcCallumfoundthatthedoctorsshouldhaveleavetofiletheamendedcrossclaimsagainsttheInsurerundersection601AG.

bench: McCallumJCitation:TzaidasvChild&Ors[2009]NSWSC465;[2009]ALMD4244;257ALR394;27ACLC805;74NSWLR208;230FLR475;72ACSR112;72ACSR112;257ALR394;230FLR475Judgment date: 29May2009

16. tzaidas v Child & Ors [2009] NSWSC 465Across-claimfiledbytwodoctorsinanongoingprofessionalnegligencecaserequiredtheCourttoexaminetheproperconstructionofsection601AGofthe Corporations Act 2001(Cth).Thatsectionprovidesamechanismforaclaimagainstaderegisteredcompanytobepursuedagainstitsinsurer.Itenablesaperson,subjecttothesatisfactionofcertainconditions,torecoverfromthederegisteredcompany’sinsureranamountthatwaspayabletothecompanyundertherelevantcontractofinsurance.

Thenegligenceclaimswerecommencedin2001andareyettobedeterminedbytheCourt.Theplaintiffs’claimswerebroughtagainstHurstvilleCommunityCo-operativeHospital(“theHospital”),twoofitsresidentdoctorsandCGUInsuranceLimited(“theInsurer”).Thedoctorsbroughtcross-claimsagainsttheHospitalseekingcontributionasajointtortfeasor,buttheHospitalhadbeenderegisteredinthemeantime,in2005.

Thedoctorsthenfiledamendedcrossclaimsseekingreliefundersection601AGoftheCorporations Act. TheysoughttorecoverfromtheInsurertheamountitwouldhavepaidtotheHospitalunderitspolicyinrespectofthedoctors’claimsforcontribution.Anessentialelementofthedoctors’crossclaimswastoprovetheHospitalhadaliabilitytothemimmediatelybeforeitsderegistration,andthattheHospital’sinsurancepolicycoveredthatliabilityimmediatelybeforeitsderegistration.

TheInsurerarguedthattheHospitalcouldonlyhave“hadaliability”immediatelybeforeitsderegistrationiftheplaintiffs’negligenceclaimshadbeenestablishedbeforethatdate.Asthoseclaimshadnotyetbeendetermined,theHospitalcouldnotbesaidtohave“hadaliability”immediatelybeforeitsderegistrationin2005.Thedoctorsdisagreed.TheysubmittedthatthefactthattheplaintiffshadnotobtainedjudgmentagainstthedoctorspriortothederegistrationofthehospitaldidnotprecludethedoctorsfromrecoveringontheircrossclaimsagainsttheInsurer.Itwouldbesufficientifthedeterminationthataliabilityexistedimmediatelybeforederegistrationweremadeatthefinalhearingoftheproceedings.

16. Judgment provides renewed guidance as to the proper construction of section 601AG of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) and the principles governing claims against the insurer of a deregistered company

54

APPENdIx (II): COURt StAtIStICS –COMPREHENSIVETABLEOFSTATISTICS(to be read in conjunction with Chapter 4)

• Filings, disposals and pending cases• timeliness

– Court of Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeal, Criminal List – age of pending cases at 31 december

– Other lists – waiting times– Listing delays

• Alternative dispute resolutionNOtES:Thefiguresforpendingcasesforeachlistcanincludecasesthathavebeenre-openedafterjudgment,andcasesreferredfromothercasemanagementlists.Forthisreason,pendingcaseloadfiguresdonotalwaysreconcilewithassociatedfilinganddisposalfiguresinthistable.

“n/a” –figuresnotavailableornotseparatelyreported“-“ –itemnotapplicable“0“ –zerocount

FILINGS, dISPOSALS ANd PENdING CASES

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COURt OF APPEAL 1

FilingsAppeals and applications for relief 442 319 377 361 339Applications for leave to appeal 2 285 213 206 185 172Net new cases 3 690 494 564 530 496

DisposalsAppeals and applications for relief 456 402 338 380 368Applications for leave to appeal 320 239 218 196 192Net disposals 4 739 603 537 560 545

Pendingcasesat31DecemberAppeals and applications for relief 336 253 292 273 241Applications for leave to appeal 154 128 116 106 88Total 490 381 408 379 329

1 Thesestatisticsexcludeholdingnoticesofappeal,holdingsummonsesforleavetoappealandnoticesofintentiontoappealbecausethoseformsdonotcommencesubstantiveappealsorapplications.

2 Thisitemalsoincludesapplicationswherepartieshaveelectedtohaveaconcurrenthearingofboththeapplicationforleavetoappealandtheappeal(ifleaveisgranted).

3 Forreportingthenet new cases,whereasummonsforleavetoappealhasbeenfiledandthenanoticeofappealisfiledpursuanttoagrantofleave,thisiscountedasonecontinuouscase(nottwoseparatecases).

4 Forreportingthenetdisposals,whereanappealhasbeenprecededbyagrantofleave,thisiscountedasonecontinuouscaseandadisposaliscountedonlywhenthesubstantiveappealisfinalised.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COURt OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 1

Filings 524 452 441 422 389Disposals 536 501 444 414 391Pendingcasesat31December 229 180 177 185 183

1 From2006onwards,thesestatisticsexcludeappealsfromdecisionsoftheNSWStateParoleAuthority.In2009atotalof5paroledecisionappealswerefiled.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COMMON LAW dIVISION – Criminal 1, 2

Criminal List

Filings3 94 104 133 101 106Disposals4 126 104 115 122 112Pendingcasesat31December 93 93 111 90 84

55

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

bails List 5

Filings 2,715 2,789 2,981 2,765 2,449Disposals 2,709 2,898 2,893 2,716 2,770Pendingcasesat31December 344 235 270 243 304

Summary jurisdiction cases 6

Filings - - 11 237 0Disposals - - 0 0 248Pendingcasesat31December - - 11 248 0

1 Inallyears,thefiguresexcludemattersunderPart7Crimes(AppealandReview)Act(formerlys474DCrimesAct)andapplicationsforre-determinationoflifesentence.

2 From2005onwards,thefiguresarebasedoncountingrulesthatalignwithnationalcountingrulesandarethereforenotdirectlycomparablewithfiguresforearlieryears.

3 Thefiguresincludecommittalsfortrial/sentence,exofficioindictments,re-trialsorderedbytheCourtofCriminalAppealorHighCourt,mattersreferredfromtheMentalHealthReviewTribunal,transfersfromtheDistrictCourt,andre-activatedmatters(egwhereabenchwarrantisexecuted).

4 Disposaliscountedatsentence,acquittalorotherfinaldisposal(previouslyitwascountedatverdict,pleaofguilty,orotherfinaldisposal).“Otherfinaldisposal”includesreferraltotheMentalHealthTribunal,nobill,deathoftheaccused,orderforabenchwarranttoissue,transfertoanothercourt,andotherfinalorders.

5 Atpresent,thefiguresforpendingcasesdonotalwaysreconcilewithassociatedfilingsanddisposalsfigures.Thisisbecausethefiguresforfilings,disposalsandpendingcasesarebeingobtainedfromdisparateinformationsourcesuntiltheJusticeLinksystemcanprovideintegratedreporting.

6 Normally,thefewsummaryjurisdictioncasesthatcometotheCourtareincludedwithcivilcaseswithintheSummonsListoftheCommonLawDivision,wheretheyaremanaged.Thecommencementof248relatedprosecutionsundertheFood Act 2003(againstonecompanyanditstwodirectors)havebeenseparatelyreportedtopreventskewingofthestatisticsintheSummonsList.Notethatthe248casesreportedherewerereportedtotheProductivityCommissionas9casesonly,inaccordancewiththenationalcountingrules.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COMMON LAW dIVISION – Civil 1

Administrative Law List


defamation List


General Case Management List 2

FilingsContested 283 333 271 317 402– personal injury 160 226 169 213 272– other 123 107 102 104 130Uncontested 216 133 128 208 173Total 499 466 399 525 575

DisposalsContested 414 375 442 383 414– personal injury 201 185 228 194 232– other 213 190 214 189 182Uncontested 191 135 92 85 120Total 605 510 534 468 534

Pendingcasesat31DecemberContested 744 784 674 680 770– personal injury 439 451 381 391 443– other 305 333 293 289 327Uncontested 116 77 62 107 105Total 860 861 736 787 875

FILINGS, dISPOSALS ANd PENdING CASES continued

56

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Possession List

FilingsContested 163 190 256 282 286Uncontested 4,710 5,178 5,198 5,190 4,324Total 4,873 5,368 5,454 5,472 4,610

DisposalsContested 124 162 196 224 286Uncontested 3,544 4,986 5,722 5,072 5,145Total 3,668 5,148 5,918 5,296 5,431

Pendingcasesat31DecemberContested 126 136 189 243 220Uncontested 2,411 2,702 2,269 2,498 1,787Total 2,537 2,838 2,458 2,741 2,007

Professional Negligence List


Summons List 3


Miscellaneous applications 4


Related issues cases filed before February 1994 5

Disposals 282 1 - - -Pendingcasesat31December 1 0 - - -

COMMON LAW dIVISION tOtALS – Civil 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Filings 6,674 7,094 7,056 7,316 6,313disposals 5,814 6,788 7,544 6,955 7,395Pending cases at 31 december 4,450 4,827 4,386 4,806 3,806

1 Between17and21December2009theCourtchangedtoanewcaseinformationandmanagementsystem–JusticeLink.ThecaseloadreportingfunctionofJusticeLinkisstillbeingdeveloped,sothedatafor2009weretakenat17December.

2 ThislistwasformerlycalledtheDifferentialCaseManagementList.3 Thefiguresexclude248casesthatarerelatedprosecutionsundertheFood Act 2003–thosecasesarereportedundertheheading‘Summary

jurisdictioncases’withinthecriminalworkloadofthisDivision.4 TheseincludeapplicationsundertheMutualRecognitionAct,Trans-TasmanMutualRecognitionAct,applicationsforproductionorders,requestsfor

servicewithinNSWofdocumentsrelatedtocivilproceedingsbeingconductedoutsideNSW,andapplicationstoenforcejudgmentsgivenoutsideAustralia.Thislistwasauditedduring2009andapproximately350caseswereclosedconsequently.

5 ThesewerecasesagainstDowCorningand3Mwheredamageswereclaimedforpersonalinjuryarisingfromsiliconimplants.ThelastremainingcaseinthisgroupwasfinalisedinJanuary2006.

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

EQUIty dIVISION 1

Admiralty List


Adoptions List 2

Applications 204 154 161 203 220Ordersmade 176 162 167 204 204Pendingcasesat31December 38 30 20 19 35


57

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Commercial List

Filings 192 215 249 264 212

Disposals 196 190 251 246 240

Pendingcasesat31December 240 265 263 298 283

Corporations List

Filings 3,134 3,213 3,008 3,150 2,764

Disposals3 2,807 2,775 2,401 2,223 2,201


Protective List 4

Applications 90 705 112 91 75

Disposals 85 626 107 104 73

Pendingapplicationsat31December 15 23 28 15 17

technology and Construction List

Filings 106 98 104 114 115

Disposals 94 93 91 109 109


General List 7

Filings 2,354 2,209 2,187 2,228 1,993

– family provision cases 655 598 624 641 512

– other 1,699 1,611 1,563 1,587 1,481

Disposals8 2,943 3,622 3,205 3,615 3,098


– other 2,365 2,926 2,611 2,834 2,493

Pendingcasesat31December 2,933 2,466 2,431 2,037 1,856


– other 2,188 1,840 1,771 1,486 1,397

Probate (Contentious Matters) List

Filings 172 166 141 150 125

Disposals 167 166 140 152 123


EQUIty dIVISION tOtALS 9

Filings 6,254 6,127 5,964 6,205 5,526

disposals 10 6,470 7,073 6,365 6,655 6,052

Pending cases at 31 december 4,103 3,652 3,605 3,472 3,153

PRObAtE APPLICAtIONS – UNCONtEStEd 11

Applications received 21,515 22,079 22,673 23,428 22,985

1 Between17and21December2009theCourtchangedtoanewcaseinformationandmanagementsystem–JusticeLink.ThecaseloadreportingfunctionofJusticeLinkisstillbeingdeveloped,sothedatafor2009weretakenat17December–theexceptionsaretheAdoptionsList,ProtectiveListandProbate(ContentiousMatters)List,forwhichthedataweretakenat31December.

2 InthisList,allapplicationstypesarecounted,includinginformationapplications.Asaresultofaudits,the2005figureswererevisedin2006,andthe2008figureswererevisedin2009.

3 TheseareRegistrars’disposalsonly–disposalsbyJudgesandAssociateJudgesareincludedinthetotalfortheGeneralList.Typically,Registrarsfinaliseabout90percentofCorporationsListcases.

4 Applicationsarecountedinsteadof“cases”becausecasesinthisListcanbeofaperpetualnature.Duringtheperiodwhenaperson’saffairsorpropertyaremanagedundertheProtectedEstatesAct,itispossiblethatmorethanoneapplicationwillbemadeinrelationtothatperson.Thedisposalsfigurereferstothenumberofdisposedapplications.Followinganauditin2009,thefiguresfor2008havebeenrevised.

5 Thisfigureisanestimate.6 Thisfigureisanestimate.7 TheRevenueListcasesareincludedwithintheGeneralList.8 ThedisposalsinthislistalsoincludecasesdisposedfromtheCorporationsListbyaJudgeorAssociateJudge.9 Thefiguresfor2005havebeenrevisedfollowinganauditoftheAdoptionsList.10ThedisposalscountingfortheEquityDivisionisnotfullyreliablebecause,forthetwolargestlists,asignificantnumberofcasesarere-opened(but

notcountedasafreshfilings).Consequently,suchmatterscanhavemorethanonedisposalrecordedagainstthem.11ThisincludesallapplicationsfiledintheProbateList.Registrarsdealwithuncontestedapplications.OnlyasmallproportionofProbateListcasesare

contestedandtheyarehandledintheProbate(ContentiousMatters)List.


58

tIMELINESS – AGE OF PENdING CASES (Court of Appeal, Court of Criminal Appeal, Criminal List) 1, 2, 3

Number pending (and % of total) National standard 4 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COURt OF APPEAL

Totalnumberofcasespending 490 381 408 379 329

Caseswithin12monthsofage90%

436(89%)

327(86%)

364(89%)

328(87%)

295(90%)


480(98%)

371(97%)

399(98%)

373(98%)

3205

(97%)

COURt OF CRIMINAL APPEAL

Totalnumberofcasespending 229 180 177 185 183


214(93%)

174(97%)

172(97%)

174(94%)

167(91%)


222(97%)

177(98%)

175(99%)

184(99%)

1756

(96%)

COMMON LAW dIVISION – Criminal 7, 8

Totalnumberofdefendantspending 93 93 111 90 84


68(73%)

75(81%)

92(83%)

73(81%)

68(81%)


80(86%)

89(96%)

108(97%)

85(94%)

789

(93%)

1 TheEquityDivisionandthecivilcasesoftheCommonLawDivisionarenotyetincludedinthistablebecausepreciseandtimelyreportingonageofpendingcasesisnotyetavailableinthoseareas.TheJusticeLinksystem,whenfullydelivered,shouldprovidethenecessaryreporting.

2 ForcasesintheCourtofAppealandtheCourtofCriminalAppeal,theageofcasesincludestimetakentodealwithanyassociatedapplicationforleavetoappeal.

3 ThesefiguresincludetheeffectoffactorsoutsidethecontroloftheCourt,suchasthetimetakentocompleterelevantcasesinothercourts,timetakentoprepareessentialreports,andtimeoccupiedbytrialsthatresultinahungjury.

4 Thenationalstandardsaretakenfromthe“backlog”performanceindicatorwithintheCourtAdministrationchapteroftheReport on Government Services (publishedbytheProductivityCommission).Notethatthenationalstandardsapplytodistrict/countycourtsaswellassupremecourtsandtherefore,forcriminalcases,coverabroadrangeofindictmentsandcriminality.MostindictmentspresentedintheCriminalListinthisCourtarefortheoffenceofmurder;othermattersmaybebroughtbeforetheCourtonlywiththeapprovaloftheChiefJusticeandgenerallyinvolvethemostseriouscriminality.

5 Ninecaseswereolderthan24months.Fiveofthoseareparticularlydifficulttoprogress–3ofthemcannotprogressuntildeterminationsaremadeineitherothercourtsorexternalinvestigations;theremaining2havebeencommencedbyapersonincustodywhoishavingdifficultyprogressingthecasesinatimelyway.

6 Eightcaseswereolderthan24months.Oneofthosecontinuestohavedifficultyinbecomingreadyforhearing,beinga‘wholeofcase’referralinvolvingStateandCommonwealthchargesandaself-representedappellant–itrequiresextensivecasepreparationandmanagementtobecomereadyforhearing.Theremaining7caseshavealsobeenproblematicbutarenoweitherheardorsetdownforhearing.

7 ThefiguresexcludemattersunderPart7Crimes(AppealandReview)Act(formerlys474DCrimesAct)andapplicationsforre-determinationofalifesentence.

8 Thefiguresarecomparablefromyeartoyear:thecountingunitisdefendants;disposaliscountedatthetimeofsentence/acquittalorotherfinaldisposal;and,whereatrialcollapsesandnewtrialisordered,thecountingoftheageofthecaseiscalculatedfromthedateofcommittal(notfromthedateoftheorderforthenewtrial).

9 Sixdefendantshadcasesthatwereolderthan24months.Fiveofthoseweretriedforterrorismoffencesinasingletrialwherethevoir-direandtrialtimeextendedover19months–theyweresentencedinFebruary2010.Theremainingcasewasdelayedbyacollapsedtrial–asubsequent6-weektrialhasbeencompleted.

59

tIMELINESS – WAItING tIMES (OthER LIStS)

Median finalisation time 1, 2 (unless otherwise indicated) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

COMMON LAW dIVISION – Criminal

BailsList–rangeduringyear(weeks) 3-6 3-6 2-4 3-6 3-7

COMMON LAW dIVISION – Civil 3

AdministrativeLawList(months) 4.4 4.8 6.3 4.7 4.2DefamationList(months) 12.6 10.9 14.0 12.6 14.6GeneralCaseManagementList(months) 28.8 22.1 21.6 22.4 16.2PossessionList(months) 6.6 6.2 7.5 6.7 7.2ProfessionalNegligenceList(months) 34.2 33.3 24.8 24.0 21.7SummonsList–civilmatters(months) 3.5 2.8 3.5 3.0 2.5SummonsList–proceedsofcrimematters(months) 6.6 10.0 6.3 8.0 9.3Casesproceedingbydefault(months) 4.6 7.6 6.3 5.7 6.0

EQUIty dIVISION 4

AdmiraltyList(months) 17.4 23.5 18.4 17.5 3.1AdoptionsList–usualfinalisationtime(weeks) 2-6 2-6 3-6 1-6 1-3CommercialList(months) 10.1 12.0 9.1 8.8 9.3CorporationsList(months) 1.6 1.4 1.6 1.6 1.7Probate(ContentiousMatters)List(months) 4.0 3.8 4.2 4.9 5.6ProtectiveList–usualtimefororderstobemade(weeks) 2-4 2-4 2-4 3-11 2-19TechnologyandConstructionList(months) 7.3 7.7 8.1 7.9 9.5GeneralList(months) 9.6 11.1 9.4 8.6 8.8Probateapplications(uncontested)–processingtime5–rangeduringyear(workingdays) 3-28 4 4 4-20 4-31

1 Themedianfinalisationtimereferstothetimebetweencommencementanddisposalforcasesfinalisedduringtheyear.Itisnotanindicatoroffuturewaitingtimeorofentrencheddelay.Whenanunusuallyhighnumberofoldercasesarefinalisedinayear,themedianfinalisationtimemaybesignificantlyhigherthaninotheryears.

2 Medianfinalisationtimesarenotfullyreliableduetolimitationsofthecurrentcomputersystem.Wherecaseshavebeendisposed,butre-openedafterjudgmentandthenre-closed,thefinalisationtimeiscalculatedfromthedateoftheoriginalcommencementtothelatestdisposaldate,resultinginanover-representationofthetimetakentofinalisethesubstantiveissuesbeforetheCourt.

3 For2009themedianhasbeentakenforcasefinalisationtimesrecordeduptoandincluding17December.4 For2009themedianhasbeentakenfromcasefinalisationtimesrecordeduptoandincluding17December,exceptfortheAdoptionsList,the

ProtectiveList,theProbate(ContentiousMatters)Listandtheuncontestedprobateapplications(wherecasefinalisationtimesforthefullyearwereavailable).

5 Thisisthetimefromlodgmenttoposting,whenapplicationsarefullyinorderwhenlodged.Applicationsthatarenotinorderarerequisitioned,andtakelonger.

60

tIMELINESS – LIStING dELAyS At thE ENd OF thE yEAR 1, 2, 3 2007 2008 2009

COURt OF APPEAL4 4months 3.5months 1.5months

COURt OF CRIMINAL APPEAL 2months 3months 2.5months

COMMON LAW dIVISION

Criminal List 54-5months 2.5months 3months

Civil lists 63-4months 2.5months 3months

bails List 3-4weeks 6weeks 3weeks

EQUIty dIVISION 7 5-6months 5months 2.5months

1 ThisisthetimebetweentheestablishmentofreadinessforhearingandthefirstgroupofavailablehearingdatesthattheCourtoffersforcriminalandciviltrialcases,criminalandcivilappealsandBailsListcases.ThesedelaysdonotapplyiftheCourtordersanexpeditedhearing.

2 Thelistingdelaysshowthepositionatthestartofthenewlawterm(forexample,for2009itisthepositionatthestartofthe2010lawterm).Thisremovesanyeffectofthelawvacation.

3 ThisisthethirdyearofreportinglistingdelaysintheAnnual Review.4 Thisreferstosubstantiveappeals(includingconcurrenthearings).5 Thisreferstocasesrequiringatleast3weeksofhearingtime.6 Thisreferstocasesrequiringupto5daysofhearingtime.7 ThisrefersonlytoGeneralListandProbate(ContentiousMatters)Listcasesrequiring2ormoredaysofhearingtimebeforeaJudge.

ALtERNAtIVE dISPUtE RESOLUtION

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Court-annexed mediations listed 1, 2

Total 250 286 282 568 666 – Common Law Division 6 12 24 37 68 – Equity Division – not probate cases 229 262 246 518 553 – Equity Division – probate cases 8 7 11 12 36 – Court of Appeal 7 5 1 1 9

Percentageofcasessettlingatmediation3 62% 58% 49% 59% 49%Listingdelay4 8weeks 4weeks 7weeks 6weeks 5weeks

Referrals to mediation generally

Totalreferralsrecorded5 517 487 748 868 1,111

Arbitrations listed

CommonLawDivision 0 1 0 0 0

1 “Court-annexedmediation”referstomediationsconductedbytheRegistrarsoftheCourtwhoarealsoqualifiedasmediators.Itexcludesmediationsconductedbyprivatemediators.

2 Thissectionreferstocourt-annexedmediationlistingsfortheyear–notethatcasesthatarereferredtocourt-annexedmediationverylateinayearmayresultina listingearlyinthefollowingyear.

3 Thisrefersonlytocasesthathavesettledandeitheragreeduponfinalisingordersordraftedheadsofagreementby the close of the mediationprocedure.Itdoesnotincludecasesthatadviseasettlementatanylatertime(eventhoughthemediationmayhavecontributedsignificantlytoreachingthatsettlement).TheRegistrydoesnotcollectsettlementdataformediationsconductedbyprivatemediators.

4 Thisisthedelayuntilthefirstavailablegroupofmediationsessionswithinthecourt-annexedmediationprogram,asreportedatthestartofthenewlawterm(forexample,for2009itisthepositionatthestartofthe2010lawterm).Earliermediationsessionsarearranged,iforderedbytheCourt.

5 ThiscoversalloccasionswhentheCourtrefersacasetomediation,regardlessofwhetherthemediationistobeconductedthroughthecourt-annexedmediationprogramorbyaprivatemediator.

61

Education Committee TheSupremeCourt,inpartnershipwiththeJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWales,providesacontinuingjudicialeducationprogramdesignedtomeetthedifferingneedsofSupremeCourtjudgesandassociatejudges.Theprogramaimsto:

• promotehighstandardsofjudicialperformance• assistinthedevelopmentofappropriatejudicial

skillsandvalues• keepjudgesup-to-datewithcurrentlegal

developmentsandemergingtrends• resultinabetterinformedandprofessional

judiciary.

Sessionsrangefromorientationprogramsfornewappointees,anannualconference,specialistoccasionalseminarsonpracticalmatters,socialawarenessissuesandlegislativechanges.ThefocusineducationforSupremeCourtjudgesisonsentencing,importantlegaldevelopments,improvingknowledgeindifficultareasoflegalpracticeandprocedure,andthedevelopmentofjudicialskills.Alsoofferedisthe360degreefeedbackprogramforjudges.

TheSupremeCourtEducationCommitteedevelopseacheducationprogrambasedontheidentifiedneedsofjudges.Inputregardingtopics,presentersandformatisprovidedbyjudges,otherparticipantsinvolvedintheadministrationofjustice,andcommunityrepresentatives.TheCommitteeiscomposedofjudgesandtheEducationDirectoroftheJudicialCommission.TheChairoftheCommitteeisalsoamemberoftheJudicialCommission’sStandingAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEducation.TheEducationCommitteecirculatedtoalljudgesinAugust2009aninformationcircularregardingtheavailableoptionsforthecontinuingprofessionaldevelopmentofSupremeCourtjudgesinNewSouthWales.ItincludedreferencetotheNationalStandardforJudicialProfessionalDevelopmentandeducationalinitiativesofinterestofSupremeCourtjudges.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeBasten(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeCampbell(fromFebruary)TheHonourableJusticeNicholasTheHonourableJusticeHislop

APPENdIx (III): thE COURt’S COMMIttEES ANd USER GROUPS

Chief Justice’s Policy and Planning CommitteeTheCommitteemeetseachmonthtodeterminestrategicpolicytobeadoptedbytheCourt,particularlyinrelationtolegislative,proceduraloradministrativechangesthatarelikelytoaffecttheCourtanditsusers.ThePolicyandPlanningCommitteeisoneofonlytwoCourtCommitteeswithdecision-makingresponsibilities,theotherbeingtheRuleCommittee.Caseloadmanagementremainedanimportantfocusthroughouttheyear.TheCommitteealsocontinuedtoreviewpolicyandproceduralinitiativessubmittedbytheCourt’sotherCommitteesdetailedinthisAppendix.

Members during 2009TheHonourabletheChiefJustice(Chairperson)TheHonourablethePresidentTheHonourableJusticeBeazleyAOTheHonourableJusticeGilesTheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeBerginSecretary:MsMGreenwood

Rule Committee TheRuleCommitteemeetseachmonthtoconsiderproposedchangestotheSupremeCourtRules1970withaviewtoincreasingtheefficiencyoftheCourt’soperations,andreducingcostanddelayinaccordancewiththerequirementsofaccesstojustice.TheCommitteeisastatutorybodythathasthepowertoalter,addto,orrescindanyoftheRulescontainedin,orcreatedunder,theSupreme Court Act 1970.TheCommittee’smembershipisdefinedinsection123oftheAct,andincludesrepresentativesfromeachDivisionoftheCourtandkeyorganisationswithinthelegalprofession.

Members during 2009TheHonourabletheChiefJustice(Chairperson)TheHonourablethePresidentTheHonourableJusticeHodgsonTheHonourableMrJusticeJamesTheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeHallTheHonourableJusticeReinMrGeoffLindsaySC(NSWBarAssociation)MsARose(LawSocietyofNSW;untilJune)MrSWestgarth(LawSocietyofNSW;fromJuly)Secretary:MrSJuppAdvisingOfficer:SeniorDeputyRegistrarFlaskas

62

TheHonourableJusticeGzell(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeLathamTheHonourableJusticeSlattery(fromJuly)TheHonourableAssociateJusticeMacreadyMsMGreenwoodMrNSanderson-GoughMrWCellich(InformationServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MrJMahon(InformationServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsKDuke(InformationServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MrDLane(InformationServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsAMcNicol(LawCourtsLibrary)MrGWalker(ReportingServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsEWalsham(ReportingServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)MsSThambyrajah(Secretary)

Alternative dispute Resolution Steering Committee TheAlternativeDisputeResolution(ADR)SteeringCommitteemeetstodiscusstheCourt’sADRprocessesandconsiderwaysinwhichtheymightbeimproved.TheCommitteeworkstoencouragetheuseofADR(particularlymediation)insolvingdisputes,andtoensuretheCourthasadequateinfrastructuretoprovidethisservice.TheCommitteemakesrecommendationstotheChiefJusticeinpursuitoftheseobjectives,consultingwithothercourtsandexternalorganisationswhereappropriate.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeBergin(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeCampbell(untilMarch)TheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeHislopTheHonourableJusticeHallTheHonourableJusticeLathamTheHonourableJusticeWard(fromMarch)TheHonourableAssociateJusticeHarrisonMsMGreenwoodMsLWaltonMsMWalkerMsGDaleyMsJHighet(Secretary)

TheHonourableJusticeHoebenAMRFD(fromFebruary)

TheHonourableJusticeJohnsonTheHonourableJusticeHarrison(fromAugust)TheHonourableJusticeFullertonTheHonourableJusticeSchmidt(fromAugust)MsMGreenwoodSecretary:MsRWindeler(JudicialCommission

ofNSW)

building Committee TheCommitteemeetsapproximatelyeverytwomonthstodiscussmattersaffectingthebuildingswithintheDarlinghurstandKingStreetcourtcomplexes,andtheLawCourtsBuildinginPhillipStreet.TheCommitteesubmitsrecommendationstotheChiefJusticethroughthePolicyandPlanningCommitteeconcerningmaintenanceandrestorationwork,includingthedesiredoutcomefromthework.TheCommitteealsoidentifiesfacilitiesthatarerequiredtosupportcourtroomoperationsandtheneedsofCourtusers.TherefurbishmentoftheLawCourtsBuildingandtheongoingrefurbishmentoftheKingStreetCourtComplexremainedtheCommittee’sprimaryconcernsduring2009.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcDougall(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeGilesTheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeBreretonTheHonourableJusticePriceMsMGreenwoodMrNSanderson-GoughMrKMarshall(Director,AssetManagementBranch,

DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)Secretary:MrJGrant

Information technology Committee TheInformationTechnologyCommitteemeetseverytwomonthstoassesstheinformationtechnologyneedsofjudicialofficersandtheirstaff,andtoreviewtheimplementationofITservices.Duringtheyear,theCommitteediscussedmeasurestoincreasetheeffectivenessoftheremoteaccesssystem.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcCollAOTheHonourableJusticeEinstein

63

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeAllsop(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeBerginMsMGreenwoodMsAMcNicol(LibraryServices)MsSRamsay(LibraryServices)

Court of Appeal Users’ Group TheGroupwasestablishedin1999andconsistsofrepresentativesfromthelegalprofessionnominatedbytheBarAssociationandtheLawSociety.TheGroupmeetswiththePresidenttwiceayearandprovidesuserswithanopportunitytoshareideasandraiseconcernsabouttheCourtofAppeal’soperations.TheGroupdidnotmeetin2009.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeAllsop(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeBeazleyAOMrPSchellMrJMaconachieQCMrDDaviesSCMrJGleesonSCMrNMavrakisMrTAbbottMrBMoroneyMrMPoldenMsKFitzgerald

Court of Criminal Appeal/Crime User Group ThejointCourtofCriminalAppeal/CrimeUserGroupwasestablishedin2004topromoteeffectivecommunicationbetweentheCourtandkeyusers.TheGroupfocusesonensuringthatCourtofCriminalAppealproceduresworkeffectivelywithintherequiredtimeframes.TheGroupdidnotmeetin2009.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcClellan(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeBarr(toMarch)MsGDrennanMsPOlsoen(DistrictCourtofNSW)MsJChin(DistrictCourtofNSW)MrMIeraceSC(PublicDefendersOffice)MrBSandland(LegalAidCommissionofNSW)MsACoultas-Roberts(LegalAidCommissionof

NSW)

Jury task Force TheTaskForcewasformedbytheChiefJusticein1992toexamineandreportonmattersrelatingtothewelfareandwellbeingofjurors.TheTaskForcemeetseverymonthtodiscussissuesaffectingjuriesandjuryservicereferredtoitbytheChiefJustice,aheadofjurisdiction,ortheAttorneyGeneral.Itmonitorsareasofpolicyconcerningjurorswithdisabilities,theSheriff’spowertodisclosetheidentityofajurorintheeventofjurytampering,andexemptionsfromjuryservice.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeBuddin(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeFullertonTheHonourableJusticeRAHulme(fromApril)HerHonourJudgeHock(DistrictCourt)HisHonourJudgeCharteris(DistrictCourt)MrMLaceyMrCAllen(SheriffofNSW)MrRKruit(RegionalManager,OfficeoftheSheriff)MsLAnamourlis(Manager,JuryServices,Officeof

theSheriff)MsSHuer(ChiefSuperintendent,Officeofthe

Sheriff;fromOctober)MsPMusgrave(Director,LegislationandPolicy

Division,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)

MsKLeah(SeniorPolicyOfficer,LegislationandPolicyDivision,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral;fromFebruary)

MrMSavarty(SeniorPolicyOfficer,LegislationandPolicyDivision,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral;fromApril)

MrKMarshall(Director,AssetManagementBranch,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral;toAugust)

MrAAndjic(AssetManagementBranch,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)

Secretary:MsLJennings

Library Committee TheSupremeCourtLibraryCommitteemeetsasrequiredtoprovideadviceonthemanagementoftheJudges’ChambersCollectionsandSupremeCourtFloorCollections.TheCommitteemetoncein2009.

64

Equity Liaison Group ThisGroupwasestablishedin2001topromotediscoursebetweenthelegalprofessionandrepresentativesoftheEquityDivisionuponmattersofinterestandimportancetotheoperationoftheDivision.TheGroupisinformalandthemeetingsfacilitatecandiddiscussionsabouttheoperationsoftheDivision.TypicallythesediscussionsencouragecooperationbetweenthejudgesandlegalprofessionindevelopingsuggestedimprovementstotheDivision’soperations.

Members during 2009TheHonourableMrJusticeYoungAO(Presiding

MemberuntilMarch)TheHonourableJusticeBergin(PresidingMember

fromMarch)TheHonourableJusticeForster(fromMay)MsLWalton

Legal profession representativesMrRGForsterSC(untilMay)MrC(Robert)NewlindsSCMrRHarperSCMsJANeedhamSCMrGASirtesSCMsPRyanMsVWhittakerMrMAshhurstMrMCondonMsAKennedyMrJMartinMrBMillerMsPSuttorMrSWestgarth

Corporations List Users’ Group TheGrouppromotesopenandregulardiscussionbetweenjudicialofficersandlegalpractitionersregardingtheCorporationsList,andassistsinensuringthattheListisconductedinafairandefficientmanner.TheGroupmetthreetimesduring2009toconsideranddiscussvariousissuesconcerningtheCourt’sworkincorporationsmattersincludingCourtprocedures,listingarrangements,andapplicationoftheCorporationsRules.

MrDArnottSC(CrownProsecutorNSW)MsDKelly(OfficeoftheSolicitorforPublic

ProsecutionsNSW)MrMDay(OfficeoftheSolicitorforPublic

ProsecutionsNSW)MsEMcKenzie(OfficeofCommonwealthDirector

ofPublicProsecutions)MrSOdgersSC(NSWBarAssociation)MrDGiddy(LawSocietyofNSW)MsESkinner(AboriginalLegalServices)MsEWalsham(ReportingServicesBranch,

DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral)

Common Law Civil Users’ Committee TheCommitteeprovidesaforumfordiscussingandaddressingmattersofconcernorinterestintheadministrationoftheCommonLawDivision’sciviltrialworkload.TheCommitteemetthreetimesduringtheyeartodiscussmattersincluding:caseloadmanagement;listingpracticeanddelays;specialistlists;juryissues,andregionalhearings.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcClellan(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeHoebenTheHonourableJusticeHallMsMGreenwoodMsJAtkinsonMrCBradford

Legal profession representativesMrPDeakinQCMsASullivanMrTHewittSCMsLMcFeeMsCLazzarottoMsSFernandez

Professional Negligence List User Group TheGroupmeetsasrequiredtodiscussissuesrelevanttotheadministrationandoperationoftheList.TheGroupconvenesasrequiredanddidnotmeetin2009.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeHislop(Chairperson)MrIButcherMrDMunroMrTSternMsAWalshMsJTully

65

MrTFBathurstQCMsEACollinsMrLVGylesMrNCHutleySCMrJCKellySCMrGCLindsaySCMrRBMacfarlanQCMrGTMillerQCMsEMOlssonSCMsRRanaMrSDRobbQCMrMGRudgeSCMrRMSmithSC

SolicitorsMrJDooleyMrRJDrinnanMrRKHeinrichMsLEJohnsonMrRGJohnstonMrPJKeelMrHDKellerMrBPKermondMrDJKempMrSHKlotzMrGAMcClellanMrSAMcDonaldMrBMillerMsNKNyghMrJPaganMsMAPaveyMsRSPersaudMrRWSchafferMrGSUlmanMrMWWatsonMrSDWestgarth

Possession List Users’ Group ThePossessionListUsersGroupwasestablishedin2006.ThePossessionListisnumericallythelargestlistintheCommonLawDivisionoftheCourtandinvolvesclaimsforpossessionoflandfollowingmortgagedefault.TheGroupcomprisesrepresentativesfromarangeoflawfirmswhoregularlyappearforplaintiffsintheListandorganisations(LegalAidNSW,theConsumerCreditLegalCentreandRedfernLegalCentre)whoprovidelegalassistancetothoseexperiencing

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeAustin(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeBarrett(Secretary)ThejudicialofficersoftheEquityDivisionMsJAtkinsonMsLWaltonMrAMusgrave

Legal profession representativesMrC(Robert)NewlindsSCMrMBOakesSCMrSGolledge(fromSeptember)MrGCussenMrMHayterMrJJohnsonMsLJohnsonMrDMcCrostieMsMO’BrienMrJThomsonMrMHughes

Other membersMsGHayden(AustralianSecuritiesandInvestments

Commission)MsDNorth(InsolvencyPractitionersAssociationof

Australia)MrMMurray(InsolvencyPractitioners’Association

ofAustralia)

Commercial List Users’ Group TheGroupprovidesaforumfordiscussionamongsttheCommercialListJudgesandlegalpractitionerswhopractiseintheCommercialListandtheTechnologyandConstructionList(theLists).TheGroupmeetstodiscussvariousissuesconcerningtheadministrationoftheLists,includingmattersofprocedureandpracticeinrelationtotheListsandthepotentialforrevisionofthepracticetoensurethattheListsoperateasefficientlyaspossible.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeCliffordEinsteinTheHonourableJusticeMcDougallTheHonourableJusticeHammerschlag(ListJudge

fromMarch)

Legal profession representatives

BarristersMrTAlexisSCMrMAAshhurst

66

Members during 2009TheHonourableMrJusticeWindeyerAMRFDEDMsMGreenwoodMrJFinlayProfessorRCroucher(MacquarieUniversity,

representingNSWlawschools)MsREdenborough(PerpetualTrusteeCompany,

representingcorporatetrustees)MrRNeal(LawSocietyofNSW)MrPWhitehead(PublicTrusteeNSW)MrMWillmott(NSWBarAssociation)Secretary:MrPStuddert

Media Consultation Group TheMediaConsultationGroupwasestablishedin2002topromoteopendiscussionbetweenkeyrepresentativesfromthecourts,legalprofessionandmedia.TheaimoftheGroupistoidentifyissuesaffectingthereportingofcourtproceedingsbythemedia.SomeoftheissuesconsideredbytheGroupincludedaccesstocourtrecordsandtheimplicationsforthemediawhenasuppressionornon-publicationorderisissued.TheGroupmeetsonaneedsbasisandmetthreetimesduring2009.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeMcCollAO(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeMcClellanTheHonourableJusticeKirbyTheHonourableJusticeNicholasMsSZadel(PublicInformationOfficer,NSW

superiorcourts)MsKDouglass(PublicInformationOfficer,NSW

superiorcourts)MrNCowderyQC(NSWDirectorofPublic

Prosecutions)MrMIeraceSC(SeniorPublicDefender)MsMScheikowski(AustralianAssociatedPress)MsJWells(AustralianBroadcastingCorporation)MrMMartin(ABCLegal)MsESmith(MacquarieRadioNetwork)MsGJacobsen(SydneyMorningHerald)MsSMoran(TheAustralian)MsMJacobs(FinancialReview)MsLCummings(DailyTelegraph)MrLJeloscek(SevenNetwork)MsACooper(ODPPPublicInformationOfficer)

problemswithdebt.TheGroupdoesnothaveappointedmembers.Rather,representativesfromthosefirmsandorganisationsattendandprovidearangeofviewsonrelevantissues.TheGroup’sprimaryobjectivesaretoencouragefrankdiscussionconcerningissuesaffectingtherunningoftheList,toidentifyhowproblemsmightbeovercomeandtoimprovecourtprocessestoassistpartiesinthisclassofproceedings.TheGroupmetonfouroccasionsin2009.

Membership during 2009:TheHonourableJusticeJohnson(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeDaviesMsJAtkinsonMrCBradfordMrKBreen

Apartfromthoselistedabove,personswhoattendedmeetingsregularlyduring2009includedthefollowing:

MsKCooper(Bransgroves)MsRDaher(Bransgroves)MrCHudson(Gadens)MsAKelly(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)MsKLane(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)MsSLever(HenryDavisYork)MrDMcMillan(LegalAidNSW)MrJMoratelli(LegalAidNSW)MsFParker(HenryDavisYork)MsNPetrou(RedfernLegalCentre)MsJPike(DibbsAbbottStillman)MrTSherrard(Gadens)MrSStierli(Hicksons)MsSWinfield(ConsumerCreditLegalCentre)

Probate Users’ Group TheGroupmeetsregularlytodiscussmattersconcerningtheoperationoftheCourt’sProbatework.TheGroupconsidersimprovementstopracticesandprocessesandmakesrecommendationstotheRuleCommitteewhenappropriate.TheGroupalsodiscussesspecificissuespertinenttoprobatemattersanddeceasedestatesgenerally.

67

Civil Registry Users’ Group TheCivilRegistryUsers’GroupisamechanismallowingopendiscussionbetweentheCourtandkeyusersregardingthedeliveryofcivilregistryservices.ItwasestablishedtoassisttheCourtinidentifyingandmeetingtheneedsandexpectationsofitsusers.TheGroupmettwicein2009.

Members during 2009MrMLaceyMsFKoleMrNGrayMrRRosman(LawandOrder)MsLAllen(MinterEllison)MsDHowitt(BlakeDawsonWaldron)MsCWilson(Litsupport)MsLAggett(LegalLiaison)MsPTsiattalos(Mallesons)MSmith(Mallesons)MrLRusso(AllensArthurRobinson)JDansinger(AllensArthurRobinson)

Access to Court documents Working Group TheWorkingGroupwasestablishedtoreviewcurrentarrangementsforaccesstocourtdocumentsandmakerecommendationsforchange,asappropriate.

Members during 2009TheHonourableJusticeRuthMcCollAO

(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeJohnsonTheHonourableJusticeHarrisonTheHonourableJusticeReinMsMGreenwoodMsKDouglassMsSZadel

Judges’ JusticeLink Committee TheCommitteemeetsweeklytomonitoranddiscussaspectsoftheJusticeLinkprojectspecificallyfromtheSupremeCourt’sperspective.TheCommitteeconsistsofnominatedjudicialrepresentativesfromtheCourtandkeystaffmembersfromtheCourt’sRegistry,theDepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneralandtheJusticeLinkprojectteam.

Members during 2009TheHonourableMrJusticeHamiltonTheHonourableJusticeHowieTheHonourableJusticeGzell(Chairperson)TheHonourableJusticeLathamTheHonourableJusticeRein(fromMarch)TheHonourableAssociateJusticeMacreadyMsMGreenwoodMsJAtkinsonMrSJupp(PrincipalJusticeLinkDevelopment

Officer)MsNUbrihien(PrincipalCourtsDevelopment

Officer,JusticeLink)

heritage Committee TheCommittee,whichwasestablishedin2002,isanadvisorycommitteetotheChiefJusticeonmattersconcerningtheCourt’sheritage.Itcomprisesservingandretiredjudgesandspecialistsinthefieldsofarchitecture,conservationandhistory.TheCommitteemeetsregularlytodiscusswaysofpreservingandpromotingaspectsoftheCourt’sheritageandhistoryandmakesrecommendationstotheChiefJusticeasrequired.

Members during 2009TheHonourableSimonShellerAOQC(Chairperson)TheHonourableJohnBrysonQCTheHonourablePaulSteinAMTheHonourableBrianSullyQCTheHonourableJusticeNicholasTheHonourableJusticeBreretonRFDTheHonourableAssociateJusticeMcLaughlinMrKMarshall(Director,AssetManagementBranch,

NSWDepartmentofJusticeandAttorneyGeneral)

MrsMBetteridge(museumconsultant)MsDJones(architecturalconsultant)

68

APPENdIx (IV): OthER JUdICIAL ACtIVIty

Aswellashearinganddeterminingcases,JudgesandAssociateJudgesactivelycontributetotheongoingprofessionaldevelopmentofthelegalcommunitybothdomesticallyandabroad.Theircontributionsextendtoactivitiessuchaspresentingpapersandspeechesatconferencesandseminars,submittingarticlesforpublication,givingoccasionallecturesateducationalinstitutions,meetingjudicialofficersfromcourtsaroundtheworld,andhostingdelegations.ManyJudgesandAssociateJudgesarealsoappointedtoserveonboards,commissions,andcommitteesforwiderangeoflegal,culturalandbenevolentorganisations.

TheJudges’andAssociateJudges’activitiesduring2009aresummarisedbelow.

tHe HOnOurABLe J J SPiGeLmAn AC, CHief JuStiCe Of new SOutH wALeSConferences:

5–9Apr 16thCommonwealthLawConference(HongKong)16May NgaraYuraConference(Rosehill)29–31May QatarLawForum,Doha(Qatar)2–5Jun Indo-AustralianLegalForum(Canberra)28–31Jul HouseofLordsConference(London,UK)11Aug SupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtJudges’Conference(Pokolbin)27Oct InternationalOrganisationforJudicialTrainingConference(Sydney)20Nov RuleofLawAssociationConference(Sydney)27–28Nov InternationalCommercialLitigationConference(Sydney)

Speaking Engagements:

2Feb OpeningofLawTermDinner(Sydney)

7AprTheHagueChoiceofCourtConventionandInternationalCommercialLitigation,CommonwealthLawConference(HongKong)

30Apr TheTraditionalityoftheLaw,OfficialaddressattheopeningoftheLawSchool,UniversityofSydney16May AddresstotheNgaraYuraConference

24May Launch–TheWordstoRememberIt:MemoirsofChildHolocaustSurvivorsTheSydneyJewishMuseum

18Jun Launch–CorporateGovernanceandInternationalBusinessLaw,SydneyLawSchool,UniversityofSydney

2Jul Address,ASICLawyersNetwork,MartinPlace(Sydney)

11Aug AddresstotheSupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference,BancoCourt(Sydney)

4SepTheMacquarieBicentennial:AReappraisaloftheBiggeReports,TheAnnualHistoryLecture,HistoryCouncilofNewSouthWales(Sydney)

9SepLaunch–ASocialHistoryofCompanyLaw:GreatBritainandtheAustralianColonies1854-1920byRobMcQueen,BancoCourt(Sydney)

21Sep CaseManagementinNewSouthWales,PaperpreparedforvisitingjudicialdelegationfromIndia(Sydney)

22Oct Launch–DVD“CircleSentencinginNSW”,BancoCourt(Sydney)

27Oct Address–InternationalOrganisationforJudicialTrainingConferenceDinner(Sydney)

13Nov AddressontheRetirementofTheHonourableDavidIppAO,BancoCourt(Sydney)

17–18Nov TheForgottenFreedom:FreedomFromFear,SydneyLawSchool,UniversityofSydney;AustralianAcademyofLaw,2009SymposiumSeries,BancoCourt(Sydney)

Publications:

SpeechoftheHonJJSpigelmanAC,deliveredatthelaunchof“RediscoveringRhetoric:Law,LanguageandthePracticeofPersuasion”(2009)83Australian Law Journal 486APlaceforRhetoric(2009)January-FebruaryQuadrantNo453(VolLIII,No1-2)OpeningofLawTerm(2009)47Law Society Journal62

Australianbusinesslawininternationalperspective:Remarksatabooklaunch(2009)32Australian Bar Review1Cross-borderinsolvency:Co-operationorconflict?(2009)83Australian Law Journal44Implicationsofthecurrenteconomiccrisisfortheadministrationofjustice(2009)18Journal of Judicial Administration 205TheTraditionalityoftheLaw(2009)83Australian Law Journal447TheHagueChoiceofCourtConventionandinternationalcommerciallitigation(2009)83Australian Law Journal 386The Macquarie Bi-Centennial: A Re-appraisal of the Bigge Reports,JJSpigelmanAC,StateLibraryofNSWandTheHistoryCouncilofNSW,Sydney,2009AnImperialcivilservant:reappraisingtheBiggeReports(2009)Summer Insites Issue61

69

delegations and International Assistance:

11Feb VisitbytheRightHonourableMrJusticeRichardMalanjum,ChiefJudgeandtheHonourableJusticeDavidWong,HighCourtofSabah&Sarawak

17FebChinesedelegation,JudicialAccountabilityStudyVisit,ledbyMrJiangHuiling,SeniorJudge,SupremePeople’sCourtofChina

19Feb ChinesedelegationledbyMrZhanJinyun,DeputyInspectorofPeople’sHighCourtofHubeiProvince,China20Feb VisitbyTheRightHonourableTheBaronessScotlandofAsthalPCQC,AttorneyGeneralofEnglandandWales20Apr ProfessorLakshmanMarasinghe,Chairman,SriLankanLawReformCommission22Sep IndianJudicialDelegationledbyTheHonourableShriKGBalakrishnan,ChiefJustice,SupremeCourtofIndia26Nov KoreandelegationledbyJudgeParkByung-Dae,SeniorPresidingJudge,CivilDivision,SeoulDistrictCourt,Korea30Nov KoreandelegationledbyJudgeYangEun-Sang,TongyeongBranchCourt,Korea10Dec VietnamesedelegationledbyTheHonourableTruongHoaBinh,ChiefJustice,SupremePeople’sCourtofVietnam18Dec DelegationfromtheSupremeCourtofKorea

Commissions in Overseas Courts:

2-10Aug Commissioner,CommissionOfInquiry,AntiguaAndBarbuda

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe JAmeS ALLSOP, PreSiDent Of tHe COurt Of APPeALConferences:

16May ConferenceonJudicial/IndigenousIssues(Parramatta,NSW)24Jun DistrictCourtConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)27–28Nov InternationalCommercialLitigationandDisputeResolutionConference(Sydney)


15Apr 2009WilliamTetleyLecture–MaritimeLaw–theNatureandImportanceofitsInternationalCharacter(Tulane,USA)

5MayAustralianAcademyofLaw2009SymposiumSeries–ProfessionalismandCommercialism–conflictorharmonyinmodernlegalpractice?(Sydney,NSW)

29May Q150ConstitutionalConference2009–Queensland’sConstitutionalInheritancefromNewSouthWales(Brisbane,Qld)15Aug ACICA&UniversityofNewSouthWales–MaritimeArbitration,Sydney,NSW19Sep 36thAustralianLegalConvention–AppellateJudgments–TheNeedforClarity(Perth,WA)

17Oct7thAnnualUniversityofSouthAustraliaTradePracticeWorkshop–TheJudicialDispositionofCompetitionCases(Adelaide,SA)

11Nov FederalCourtofAustralia–MarineInsuranceAct1909100thAnniversary(Sydney,NSW)

Publications:

“Queensland’sConstitutionalInheritancefromNSW”Queensland’sConstitution–Past,PresentandFuture(publishedbySupremeCourtofQueenslandLibrary)pp8-44

Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:

AdjunctProfessor,AustralianMaritimeCollegeandUniversityofSydney

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe m J BeAzLey AOConferences:

24–28Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)4Mar ContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentSeminar,NewSouthWalesBarAssociation6Mar CommercialLitigationSeminar,(Chair)(Sydney)19–20Jun TheLawSocietyofNewSouthWales:SpecialistAccreditationPersonalInjuryLawConference(HunterValley)


4Mar Paper:Practice and Advocacy in the Court of AppealContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentSeminar,NewSouthWalesBarAssociation

24Apr Speech:NotreDameLawSocietyInauguralLawBall2May Speech:BallinaLawSocietydinner

19JunPaper:Personal Injury Actions: future directionsTheLawSocietyofNewSouthWales:SpecialistAccreditationPersonalInjuryLawConference,HunterValley

25JunSpeech:Much speech is one thing, well-timed speech is anotherAustralianLawyersPhil-HellenicAssociation,Sydney

15SepSpeech:The Model Litigant: failing to be model?GovernmentSolicitorsAnnualDinner

70

16Oct Speech:2009FinalYearDinnerforGraduatingStudentsSydneyUniversityLawSociety


Chair,NSWChapter,AustralianInstituteAdministrativeLawExecutiveCommitteeMember,JudicialConferenceofAustraliaChair,AdvisoryCommittee,“Equality Before the Law Bench Book”,JudicialCommissionofNewSouthWalesChair,Women’sAdvisoryNetwork,NationalBreastandOvarianCancerCentreMember,BoardofGovernors,QueenwoodSchoolforGirlsMember,AdvisoryBoard,CentreforChildrenandYoungPeople,SouthernCrossUniversityMember,BoardofDirectors,SydneyTalent,UniversityofSydney

Member,AdvisoryBoard,CentenaryInstitutePatron,ToongabbieLegalCentre

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe r D GiLeSConferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudge’sConference(Pokolbin,NSW)


Member,EditorialBoardoftheInsuranceLawJournal

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe DAviD HODGSOn AOConferences:

26–27Mar WorkshopconductedbytheCentreforConsciousness,ANU,onConsciousnessandtheVegetativeState(Canberra,ACT)

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)20Oct SymposiumonAddiction,IdentityandResponsibility(MacquarieUniversity,NSW)


12Mar PhilosophySeminar,RSSS,ANU“Theroleofgestaltsinconsciousdecision-making”(Canberra,ACT).17Mar ANUPhilosophySocietySeminar“TheConway/Kochenfreewilltheorem”(Canberra,ACT)25Mar SeminaratCentreforAppliedPhilosophyandPublicEthics,ANU“Virtuesofretribution”(Canberra,ACT)

5AugSeminaratUniversityofNewSouthWales,commentaryon“Philosophicalfoundationsofneuroscience”(Kensington,NSW)

20OctPapergivenatsymposiumonAddiction,IdentityandResponsibility“Addiction,freewillandcriminalresponsibility”(MacquarieUniversity,NSW)

24Oct DiscussantonABCRadioNationalprogramAllintheMindonAddiction,FreeWillandSelf-control(Sydney)14Nov PapergivenatJuliusStoneInstituteofJurisprudenceconference“Compatibilismandhardsocialconditions”(Sydney)

Publications:

“Criminalresponsibility,freewillandneuroscience”inMurphy,EllisandO’Connor(eds)Downward Causation and the Neurobiology of Free Will(Springer2009)“Thelimitsofphysicalism”inMcHenry(ed)Science and the Pursuit of Wisdom(OntosVerlag2009)


Part-timeCommissioner,NSWLawReformCommissionSupremeCourtRepresentativeontheFacultyofLawoftheUniversityofNewSouthWales

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe murrAy tOBiAS Am rfD Appointments to Legal, Cultural or benevolent Organisations:

ChairoftheLegalProfessionAdmissionBoard

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe rS mCCOLL AOConferences:

24–28Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)30Sep–2Oct MediaLawResourceConference(London,UK)9–11Oct JudicialConferenceofAustraliaAnnualColloquium(Melbourne)

71


17Jan Speech,“Whataboutme–yourPetsandyourWill”YoungLawyersAnimalLawCommittee30Sep “AnAustralianPerspectiveonPrivacyLawDevelopments”MediaLawResourceCentre,LondonConference7Dec Speech,“LaunchoftheAnimalLawToolkit”,Voiceless


President,JudicialConferenceofAustraliaChair,NewSouthWalesRhodesScholarshipSelectionCommittee

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe JOHn BAStenConferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)25–29Oct 4thInternationalConferenceontheTrainingoftheJudiciary(Sydney)


31MarPaper–Judicial Review, Statutory Interpretation and Compensation –AGS/SydneyLawSchoolExcellence in Government Decision-Making Course (Canberra)

Publications:

BookReviewforUNSWLawJournal–“RediscoveringRhetoric–Law,LanguageandthePracticeofPersuasion(FederationPress,2009)JTGleesonandCAHiggins(eds)


Chair,JudicialCommissionofNSWStandingAdvisoryCommitteeonJudicialEducationMember,UNSWFacultyAdvisoryCouncil

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe mCCLeLLAn, CHief JuDGe At COmmOn LAwConferences:

18–20Jan AsiaPacificJudicialReformForum(Singapore)26Mar NSWStateLegalConference(Sydney)27Mar CollaborativeProfessionals(NSW)Inc(Sydney)20Mar NationalJudicialOrientationProgram–ExpertEvidence(Melbourne)12–19Jun LecturetojudgesandpractitionersoncontemporaryAustralianciviljusticeprocesses(Malaysia)2Oct JudicialCollegeofVictoriaEmergingIssuesinExpertEvidence(Melbourne)11–16Oct NationalJudicialCollege–CivilEvidenceSeminar(BeijingandShanghai)13Nov NationalJudicialOrientationProgram–ExpertEvidence(Adelaide)20Nov 7thAnnualJuryResearch&PracticeConferencepresentedbyTheJusticeResearchGroup,UniversityofWestern

Sydney–“ImplementingJuryReform”–ParliamentHouse(Sydney)


19–21Jan Asia-PacificJudicialReformForum–Roundtablemeeting“Important Issues for APJRF”(Singapore)25Feb AustralianAcademyofForensicSciences–PlenarySession(Sydney)

26MarKeynoteAddress–NSWStateLegalConference–LiabilityinHealthCareSessions–Litigation – Some Contemporary Issues” (Sydney)

27MarCollaborativeProfessionals(NSW)Inc–joinapanelofmembersofthejudiciarytotalkattheconferenceabouttheroleofalternatedisputeresolution

29AprOfficiallaunchtheAsia-PacificCentreforComplexRealPropertyRightsatUniversityofTechnology–A Discussion on Property Rights-( Sydney)

12–19Jun Malaysia–expertevidence;judgmentwriting

Aug Concurrentevidence–Hunt&Hunt(Sydney)

2Oct JudicialCollegeofVictoria,“Admissibility of Expert Evidence under the Uniform Evidence Act” (Melbourne)

11–16OctNationalJudicialCollegeofChina“Administrative Law; Expert Evidence”; “Evidence in Civil Proceedings: an Australian perspective on documentary and electronic evidence; Judicial notice (Beijing).

4Nov Defamation Seminar “Eloquence&Reasonarejuriesappropriatefordefamationtrials?”(Sydney)

20Nov WelcomeAddress:JuryResearch&PracticeConference(Sydney)

7Dec ConcurrentevidenceseminarwithJusticeHoeben–SupremeCourtofNSW(Sydney)10Dec PaulSteinConference:Environment Crime in context: FromISPCC v Caltexto date (Sydney)

72

Publications:

“AreJuriesNecessary?TheRoleofjuriesindefamationtrials”JournaloftheAustralianLawyersAlliancePrecedent–(May/June2009)Issue92Sworntogether–adiscussionofconcurrentevidencePrecedent“UniformDefamationAct2005”Gazette of Law & Journalism


Member,AustralianAcademyofForensicSciencesMember,AustralianPacificJudicialReformForumSteeringCommittee


17Feb SupremePeople’sCourtofChina–AustralianHumanRightsCommission–JudicialAccountabilityStudy

17Mar Thaijudges’delegation–expertevidence/trialprocess

25May NepaleseCriminalLawReform&RealignmentTaskforce

20Jul Shanghaijudges’delegation22Sep Indianjudges’delegation28Oct DelegationofJapaneseattorneysatlaw–concurrentevidenceNov DelegationofJapaneseattorneysatlaw–concurrentevidence30Nov KoreanJudicialdelegation10Dec Vietnamesejudges’delegation

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe SimPSOn Conferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)

11–16OctNationalJudicialCollegeofChina“Administrative Law; Expert Evidence”;“Evidence in Civil Proceedings: an Australian perspective on documentary and electronic evidence; Judicial notice”(Beijing,China)

11–16Oct NationalJudicialCollege–CivilEvidenceSeminar(BeijingandShanghai,China)


Member,LegalProfessionAdmissionBoardExaminationsCommittee

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe Peter HiDDen Am Conferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)27Nov PresidingJudgeoftheLawSocietyMockTrialCompetition(WesleyCentre,Sydney)


3Sep NewSouthWales2009LitigationSkillsForum,“Practical advice concerning the presentation of evidence” (Sydney)

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe CLiffOrD einSteinConferences:

25–29Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)9–11Jun AustralasianHighTechCrimeConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)


10Mar BuildingandConstructionSeminar–chairmanandopeningaddress.“Reflections on the Commercial List as at the commencement of 2009”

14Jul–11AugNSWYoungLawyersCivilLitigationEssayCompetitionandPresentationofPrizes–Judgeandkeynoteaddress,“I have made this [letter] longer, because I have not had the time to make it shorter”, Blaise Pascal, “Lettres provinciales”, letter 16,1657”,

2–3Sep LexisNexis2009LitigationSkillsForum,keynoteaddress,“A forensic expert, like other experts, should not be like a “frog under the coconut shell’ [HarcharanSingTaraMalaysia[2006]5MLJxivi;[2006]5MLJA46]–ExpertOpinionEvidence

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe kirBySpeaking Engagements:

28May CastlecragConservationSociety


Member,SupremeCourtMediaConsultationGroup

73

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe r P AuStinConferences:

11Aug SupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)


31Jul WelcomingRemarksonCurrentIssuesinInsolvency,CommercialLawAssociationConference(Sydney)11Aug An Introduction to the Conference Themes(withassistancefromAaronRathmell)andPrefacetomonographofThe

SupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference:DirectorsinTroubledTimes(Sydney)

Publications:

Co-author,Ford’s Principles of Corporations Law (LexisNexis,14thedandlooseleaf)withIMRamsay


ChallisLecturerinCorporateLaw,UniversityofSydney(MasterofLawsdegreecoursesinTakeovers and Reconstructions andCorporate Fundraising)Member,EditorialBoard,CompanyandSecuritiesLawJournal

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe AntHOny wHeALyConferences:

25–29Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe rOD HOwieConferences:

25–29Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)


21Mar NSWYoungLawyersCLE–Criminal Law Update

7MayLandandEnvironmentCourtconference– Criminal Law Update –presentedbyJusticeJohnsonattheConference(Sydney)

1Jul LocalCourtConference–Criminal Law Update (Sydney)21Aug SupremeCourtJudges’Conference–Criminal Law Update (HunterValley,NSW)

Publications:

ConsultingEditorforCriminalLawNews(publishedbyLexisNexis)

Co-authorofCriminalPracticeandProcedure(LexisNexislooseleaf)


Chairman,BenchBookCommittee

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe r i BArrettConferences:

12–14Mar LawCouncilofAustralia2009InsolvencyWorkshop(HamiltonIsland,Qld)20–21Jun EighthJointUNCITRAL/INSOL/WorldBankMultinationalJudicialColloquiumonInsolvency(Vancouver,Canada)23–24Jun INSOLInternationalEighthQuadrennialCongress(Vancouver,Canada)11Aug TheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)11–13Sep LawCouncilofAustralia2009CorporationsLawWorkshop(YarraValley,Vic)


11Jun InconjunctionwithJusticeEmmettoftheFederalCourtofAustralia,presentedaBarAssociationContinuingProfessionalDevelopmentSeminaronPracticeintheCorporationsLists(Sydney)

20–21JunEighthJointUNCITRAL/INSOL/WorldBankMultinationalJudicialColloquiumonInsolvency.WithJusticeKaneoftheDelhiHighCourtandJusticeMcGowanoftheHighCourtofIreland,ledpaneldiscussion“Reflectionontheneedforjudicialco-operation”(Vancouver,Canada)

31Jul CurrentIssuesinInsolvencyConference,CommercialLawAssociationandUniversityofSydney–ClosingAddress(Sydney)

Publications:

“Thoughtsoncourt-to-courtcommunicationininsolvencycases”InsolvencyLawJournal(2009)Vol17No4page206

74

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe PALmerConferences:

11Aug SupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)13Nov LegalAid:CivilLawConference–MemberofPanelonCapacityIssues(Sydney)25–27Nov PaperforInternationalConference“Architecture&Justice”,“Shaping Justice”(LincolnUniversity,UK)


5Mar OpeningcommentaryattheUNSW“Wills&EstateAdministrationUpdate”17Jun SpeechattheCommonwealthDirectorofPublicProsecutions,SydneyOfficeConference:“Work/LifeBalance”.27Jun SpeechattheAnnualConferenceoftheBlueMountainsLawSociety:“JudicialEccentricity”11Aug SpeechatBarAssociation’sNewBarristers’Seminar“PresentingOpeningAddresses”.11Aug IntroductiontoProfJenniferHillatSupremeCourtAnnualCorporateLawConference:“DirectorsinTroubledTimes”.19Oct Presentationof8thAnnualSupremeCourtConcert9Nov GuestSpeakerattheLawSocietyWill&EstatesAccreditedSpecialistsAnnualDinner


President,ArtsLawCentreofAustraliaChairman,PacificOperaCompanyDirector,ArsMusicaAustralisDirector,SydneyOmegaEnsemble

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe terry BuDDinConferences:

18–19MarNationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia(Melbourne)AttendedmeetingofSteeringCommitteeofNJOPPresenter,SessiononSentencing

12–13NovNationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia(Adelaide)AttendedmeetingofSteeringCommitteeofNJOPPresenter,SessiononSentencing


Member,NationalJudicialOrientationProgram,SteeringCommitteeChairperson,JuryTaskforce

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe iAn vitALy GzeLLConferences:

18Feb SocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners(STEP)PresentationbyWALee“Purifying the Dialect of Equity: Some Phrases and Concepts for the Waste Paper Basket”(Sydney)

26MarSTEPPresentationbyChrisCuffe“Prescribed Private Funds (PPFs) – past, present and future … including an overview of Commonwealth Treasury’s proposed Integrity Measures”(Sydney)

22AprSTEPPresentationbyProfessorRosalindCroucher“Quirks and Curios – Lighthearted Reflections on Classic Moments in Succession Law”(Sydney)

25–30Apr TheInternationalAcademyofEstateandTrustlawConference(Cartagena,Colombia)11–13May InternationalSeminarforTaxJudges(Paris,France)

20MaySTEPPresentationbyBrendonLamersandMarkFriezer“Managed Investments Trusts – The New Withholding Tax Regime”(Sydney)

17JunSTEPPresentationbytheHonourableLJPriestleyQC“Anti-Money Laundering – Potential Problems for Australian Lawyers”(Sydney)

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(HunterValley)26Aug STEPPresentationbytheHonourableKeithMasonACQC“Deconstructing Constructive Trusts”(Sydney29Sep STEPPresentationbyTonySlaterQC“Amending a Trust Deed”(Sydney)14Oct STEPPresentationbyProfessionGinoDalPont“The Future of Charity Law in Principle and in Practice”(Sydney)19–21Nov STEPCommitteesandBranchChairsAssembly(London)25Nov STEPPresentationbytheHonourableJusticeBergin,ChiefJudgeinEquity“Executors/Trustees and Mandatory

Mediation”(Sydney)

75


17Jul Paper–QueenslandBarPracticeCourseFinalAddress“Managing Technology”(Brisbane)22Jul Speech–OpeningofPerthBranchoftheSocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners(STEP)(Perth)7Oct Paper–e-DiscoveryAustralianConference“Controlling the Flow of e-discovered Documents into Evidence” (Sydney)22Oct Paper–e-Discovery&DigitalForensics“Managing Digital Information in Today’s Judicial and Legal Systems”(Singapore)27Nov DinnerSpeech–10thAnniversaryofSTEP(Sydney)


Vice-PresidentWesternPacific,TheInternationalAcademyofEstateandTrustLawMemberofExecutiveCouncilofTheInternationalAcademyofEstateandTrustLawJudiciaryMember,SocietyofTrustandEstatePractitioners(STEP)ChairmanSTEPAustralia–SydneyBranchHonoraryLifeMember,TaxationInstituteofAustraliaMember,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral,JusticeLinkSteeringCommitteePatronandLifeMember,RegionalArtsNewSouthWalesHonoraryMember,TaxationCommitteeofBusinessLawSectionofLawCouncilofAustraliaCouncillorofAustralasianInstituteofJudicialAdministration


22Sep IndianDelegateledbyChiefJusticeBalakrishnan,SupremeCourt,Delhi

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe w H niCHOLASConferences:

11Aug TheSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesAnnualCorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)


17Mar UniversityofNSWCLESeminar:DefamationLawUpdate


BoardMember,KimberleyFoundationAustraliaHonoraryCouncillor,RoyalAgriculturalSocietyofNSWTrustee,McGarvieSmithInstituteMember,CourtofArbitrationforSport,OceaniaRegistryMember,SupremeCourtHeritageCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtEducationCommitteeMember,StateRecordsAuthorityofNewSouthWales

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe mCDOuGALLConferences:

23–27Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)23–26Mar CourtoftheFutureNetworkConference(Melbourne)5–9Apr 16thCommonwealthLawConference2009(HongKong)


5–9Apr “Law, Liberty and Terrorism”(CommonwealthLawConference,HongKong)

11Sep“An examination of the role and content of natural justice in adjudications under construction industry payment legislation”(LEADRAnnualConference,Melbourne)

13Nov “Some thoughts on calling expert evidence”(SydneyCLA)

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe wHiteConferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)12–13Sep LawCouncilCorporationsConference(Melbourne)


ChairofLegalQualificationsCommitteeofLegalProfessionAdmissionBoard

76

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe JOHnSOnConferences:



7May LandandEnvironmentCourtAnnualConference–“CriminalLawUpdate”(Sydney)(speakingtopaperpreparedbytheHonJusticeHowie)

20OctJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWalestwilightseminar–theMentalHealthLegislationAmendment(ForensicProvisions)Act–(Sydney)(chair)

5Nov AnnualADTMembersConference–“ControllingUnreasonableCross-Examination”(Sydney)(speaker)

21NovTheMotorAccidentsAssessmentService2009Assessors’AnnualConference–“ControllingUnreasonableCross-Examination”(Sydney)(speaker)

22Dec OfficeoftheDirectorofPublicProsecutionsSolicitors’TrainingandDevelopmentDay–“RecentDevelopmentsinSentencing”(Sydney)(speaker)

Publications:

“ControllingUnreasonableCross-Examination”–JudicialOfficers’Bulletin,May2009Co-Author“CriminalPracticeandProcedureNSW”(LexisNexislooseleafservice)

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe StePHen rOtHmAn Am

Conferences:

23–27Jan SupremeandFederalCourtsJudges’Conference(Hobart)6–7Feb NationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia–Sentencing2009Conference(Canberra)

19FebNSWJudicialCommission–TwilightSeminar:‘Recent Amendments to the Evidence Act’[MrStephenJOdgersSC](Sydney)

20Feb ConstitutionalLawConference&Dinner(Sydney)16–17May NSWJudicialCommission–NgaraYuraExchangingIdeasConference(Parramatta)29Jun Carroll&O’DeaLawyersLunchtimeSpeakerSeries[TheHon.MichaelKirbyACCMG](Sydney)

1JulNSWSocietyofJewishJurists&LawyersIncLuncheon:‘A mixture of legal issues: Crime, Prisons, Human Rights and Civil Matters’ [TheHon.GregSmithSCMP,ShadowAttorney-GeneralandShadowMinisterforJustice](Sydney)

20AugTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Equitable Estoppel: The House of Lords speaks twice breaking 150 years of silence’[LordNeubergerMR](Sydney)

4SepTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘The Common Law and the Protection of Human Rights’[TheHonChiefJusticeRobertFrench](Sydney)

22SepTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Forum on the Pape Case’[DrNicholasSeddon–BlakeDawson,AssociateProfessorAnneTwomey–UOS,TheHonMurrayGleesonAC](Sydney)

20OctNSWJudicialCommission–MentalHealthLegislationAmendment(ForensicProvisions)ActSeminar[TheHon.GregJamesQC,President,MentalHealthReviewTribunal](Sydney)

22Oct NSWJudicialCommission–LaunchofDVD–CircleSentencinginNSW[ProfessorMickDodson](Sydney)

22OctTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘The Entrenched Minimum Provision of Judicial review and the Rule of Law’[AssociateProfessorLeightonMcDonarld–ANU](Sydney)

17NovTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Reflections on the Republic and Executive Power: The Evolution of the Winterton Thesis’[AssociateProfessorPeterGerangelos–UOS](Sydney)

19NovTheAnglo-AustralasianLawyersSociety:‘Protecting human rights in Australia: What is the best course for the future’[ProfessorFrankBrennanSJAO;TheHon.JohnHatzistergosMLC](Sydney)

7Dec NSWJudicialCommission–TwilightSeminar:‘Concurrent Evidence in the Supreme Court’[TheHonourableJusticePeterMcClellan,HonourableJusticeCliffHoebenAMRFD](Sydney)


3Sep LexisNexisLitigationSkillsConference–Addresson‘Thinking through hearsay during your case preparation’(Sydney)


Director;BoardMemberandChairoftheWorkplaceRelationsCommittee,AssociationofIndependentSchoolsNon-TrusteeGovernor;ExecutiveMemberandMemberofthePlanningCommitteeandStatusCommittee,JewishCommunalAppealHonoraryLifeMember,ExecutiveMember,NSWJewishBoardofDeputiesExecutiveMember,BoardofJewishEducationCo-Chair–AustralianCouncilofJewishSchoolsMember–OrganisingCommitteeoftheJointSupremeCourt/FederalCourtJudges’Conference

77

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe PAuL BreretOn rfDSpeaking Engagements:

28Feb CostsAssessors’AnnualSeminar–“Recent Developments in Costs Assessment” (Sydney)

AugKeynoteaddress–OutdoorRecreationIndustryCouncilofNSW,NovotelHotel,SydneyOlympicPark–“Aspects of Law for Outdoor Educators”

21–23Aug SupremeCourtConference–Commentator–“Expert Witnesses & Concurrent Evidence”–HunterValley3Sep LexisNexis–LitigationSkillsForum–”Cross examining & re-examining a witness”(Sydney)17Sep DepartmentofCommunityServices–LegalOfficers’Conference–“Parens Patriae” (Sydney)


Member,LawExtensionCommittee,UniversityofSydneyChair,CostsAssessmentUsersGroup,SupremeCourt

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe PriCeConferences:

15–18Jun 18thPacificJudicialConference(Tahiti)

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe DAviD HAmmerSCHLAGConferences:



20Nov Panel“IstheRuleofLawUnderChallengeinAustralia?”–RuleofLawAssociation,HiltonHotel,Sydney26Nov NSWYoungLawyersDistinguishedSpeakersSeries–BusinessLawCommittee“ExperiencesintheLaw”–NSWLaw

Society,Sydney

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe iAn HArriSOnConferences:

13-15Mar AIJACourtInterpretersconference(Fremantle,WA)5Nov GILDAnnualConference


7Feb Speaker–TheNewSouthWalesBarAssociationPersonalInjuryConference,Sydney7Mar Speaker–PublicDefenders’CriminalLawConference,TarongaZoo,Sydney22May CommencementspeechtolawgraduatesatUniversityofSydneygraduationceremony


SupremeCourtrepresentativeonLegalQualificationsCommitteeSupremeCourtofNewSouthWalesrepresentativeonJointCourtsLitigationFunding&InsuranceHarmonisationCommitteeSupremeCourtAccesstoCourtDocumentsWorkingGroup

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe fuLLertOnConferences:

7–8Feb “JudicialReasoning:ArtorScience?”(Canberra)


19Aug CLESeminarpresentation–LawSocietyofNSW,“Substantive defence – The Case Theory Approach”(Sydney)

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe LuCy mCCALLumConferences:

18Feb STEPLecture(Sydney)16–17May ExchangingIdeasConference(Sydney)21May TwilightSeminaronOnlineResearch(Sydney)11Aug CorporateLawConference(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)22Oct LaunchofCircleSentencingDVD

78


9Mar LecturetoBarReadersre.WrittenSubmissions16Nov OpeningAddresstotheSydneyInstituteofCriminologyandCorrectiveServicesSeminar’Women,Crime,Custodyand

Beyond’(SydneyUniversity)


MemberoftheAdvisoryBoard,NotreDameUniversityLawSchool

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe n G reinConferences:


Publications:

“OutsidetheConstructionZone–ThreeAspectsofInsuranceLitigationThatDoNotInvolveInterpretationoftheContractofInsurance”,paperpresentedatSupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference,August2009.


Member,SupremeCourtRulesCommitteeMember,UniformCivilProcedureRulesCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtAccesstoCourtDocumentsWorkingGroupCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtJusticeLinkCommitteeMember,HarmonisationCommitteeinrelationtovariousmatters,including:(1)HagueConventiononService;(2)InterestRates;(3)SubpoenaRulesAmendment;and(4)FreezingOrdersAmendment

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe wArDConferences:

23–27Jan SupremeandFederalCourtJudges’Conference(Hobart)16–20Mar NewJudges’Conference(Melbourne)27Jul Multi-DoorCourthouseSymposium,(LawCouncilofAustralia)(Representative,SupremeCourtofNSW)(Canberra)24Jun DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral–ADRBlueprintSteeringCommitteemeeting(Sydney)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)17–18Sep JudgmentDrafting


28Aug “WomeninLaw”–Women’sCollegeUniversityofSydney27Nov OccasionalAddress,LawGraduationCeremony,UniversityofSydney

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe rOBert ALLAn HuLmeConferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)7Sep JuryManagementProgram,NationalJudicialCollegeofAustralia(Adelaide)


27Nov Admissibility of Tendency and Coincidence Evidence under the uniform Evidence Act(CountyCourt,Victoria)

Publications:

Co-author Criminal Law News,LexisNexisButterworths


Member,JuryTaskForceMember,JudicialCommissionofNSWCriminalTrialsBenchBookCommittee


19–22DecConsultationwithjudgesofQinghaiProvince,Chinaat14thAsianConsultationonDueProcessIssues,AsianLegalResourceCentre(Bangkok,Thailand)

79

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe m J SLAtteryConferences:

21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)17–18Sep JudgmentWritingWorkshopattheJudicialCommissionofNewSouthWales(Sydney)8–13Nov NationalJudicialOrientationProgramSunday(Glenelg,SouthAustralia)


25May Swearing In Speech, SwearinginCeremonyasJudgeoftheSupremeCourtofNSW,Banco(Sydney)19Nov Speaker,CityofSydneyLawSocietyAnnualDinner,CastlereaghHotel(Sydney)20Nov SpeakeratNewSouthWalesNavyReserveLegalPanelMessDinner(Sydney)


Member,LawAdmissionsConsultativeCommitteeMember,LegalProfessionAdmissionBoardMember,LegalQualificationsCommitteeMember,IndigenousBarristersTrust–TheMumShirlFund

tHe HOnOurABLe JuStiCe mOnikA SCHmiDtConferences:

7–14Jan AustralianAccountants&LawyersConference(Aspen,Colorado)21–23Aug SupremeCourtAnnualJudges’Conference(Pokolbin,NSW)17–18Sep LogicandLegalReasoninginJudicialDecision-MakingWorkshop(Melbourne)


7–14Jan AustralianAccountants&LawyersConference“Industrial Relations 2009 – Turbulent Times Ahead?”(Aspen,Colorado)19Sep YoungLawyersNSW“Introduction to Advocacy, How to keep the judges happy”(Sydney)24Sep AnnualIndustrialRelationsCommissionConference“Concurrent Expert Evidence”(Sydney)

tHe HOnOurABLe ASSOCiAte JuStiCe mCLAuGHLinPublications:

“SirCharlesAugustusFitzroy”,TheGovernorsofNewSouthWales(Ed.CluneandTurner),2009,FederationPress,Sydney


HonoraryFellow,UniversityofSydney,November2009

tHe HOnOurABLe ASSOCiAte JuStiCe riCHArD mACreADyConferences:



23Jul ElectronicDiscovery&DigitalDocumentManagement “Overview and Challenges the Court Faces and Benefits to the Court”,UniversityofNewSouthWales(Sydney)

7Oct JudicialPerspectivesonEDiscovery(Sydney)


Chairman,CaselawGovernanceCommitteeMember,DepartmentofJustice&AttorneyGeneral’sJusticeLinkSteeringCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtJudgesJusticeLinkCommitteeMember,SupremeCourtITCommittee

80

Printed on Monza Satin – 55% recycled and 45% FSC paper stock, using vegetable oil based inks and an environmentally friendly alcohol-free printing process. (ecoDesign ecoPrint FSC Cert no. QMI-COC-001113) 81

Supreme Court of New South Wales

Law Courts Building184 Phillip StreetSydney nSw 2000Australia

GPO Box 3Sydney nSw 2001Australia

DX 829 SydneyPhone: + 61 2 9230 8111fax: + 61 2 9230 8628email: [email protected]:www.lawlink.nsw.gov.au/sc