CELIK v GOVERNMENT INSURANCE OFFICE OF NEW SOUTH

Mr Celik, through an interpreter, informed the Court today that he was aware that notices of appeal had not been filed in all four of his cases.

I am informed by Mrs. Gray, who appears for the Government Insurance Office, that no steps have been taken to proceed with the appeal that was filed in time.

However, on 14 March 1991 the claimant, Mr Celik, appearing in person, lodged a notice of motion with the Court, which was made returnable on 8 April, seeking an extension of time within which to appeal from the decisions of Judge Cramer-Roberts. The notice of motion was not supported by any affidavit.

The following day, 15 March, what appears to be Notice of Appeal was also filed in this Court in respect of the decisions of Judge Cramer-Roberts in all four of the cases heard by him in September 1990.

The documents do not reveal that a Notice of Appeal was in fact filed within time from the Judge's decision in one of those four cases. The Court is indebted to Mrs. Gray for this information.

Mr Celik's notice of motion came before the Court on the return date 8 April and has since been before the Court on 29 April, 27 May and today 22 July. The position at the present time is that Mr Celik is still appearing for himself and there is still no evidence in support of his application.

In the circumstances it seems to me that it is now necessary for the Court to give directions which will ensure that this matter is effectively heard and determined when it next comes before the Court.

I therefore proposed to adjourn the case until 19 August, that is for a period of four weeks, so that Mr Celik could prepare and file the necessary affidavit material. However, Mr Celik asked me for a further two weeks and, since there was no opposition from Mrs. Gray, I propose to adjourn the notice of motion until Monday 2 September.

Even as at today the position was that Mr Celik had not served the Government Insurance Office with either his notice of motion of 14 March or his notice of appeal of 15 March. At my request Mr Celik gave copies of each of these documents to Mrs. Gray in Court.

I have endeavoured to explain to Mr Celik that unless his motion is supported by evidence on affidavit explaining why he should be allowed to appeal from three of the decisions of Judge Cramer-Roberts six months after those judgments were given, the Court will have no option but to refuse his application.

I have also explained to Mr Celik that he will have to serve copies of any affidavits on the Government Insurance Office before Monday 2 September.

I have therefore directed that any affidavits prepared by Mr Celik or by any solicitors on his behalf should be served on the Government Insurance Office by no later than Wednesday 28 August this year. It will also be necessary, of course, for the originals of those affidavits to be lodged with the Court.

Mrs. Gray in Court handed to Mr Celik a note explaining where the Government Insurance Office is located and where copies of the affidavits could be left to be received by the Government Insurance Office.

In all the circumstances I therefore fix Monday 2 September 1991 for the hearing of this notice of motion.

I direct that the notice of motion be heard that day and that any affidavits to be relied upon the claimant, Mr Unal Celik, be filed and served on the Government Insurance Office on or before Wednesday 28 August.

My intention is giving these directions is that they should be peremptory, so that if they are not complied with by Mr Celik the Court will be entitled to dismiss his motion when it next comes before the Court on 2 September. In giving directions in this form I do not, of course, attempt to bind any Judge who would be assigned to hear the case on 2 September but I have given directions in this form so that this litigation may be disposed of, it at all practicable, on 2 September and not drag on further.

There is no need for me to make any separate order as to the costs of today.