(a) in the proceedings at first instance; or
(b) in the proceedings at first instance by reference to proceedings before the Equal Opportunity Tribunal in 1998.
9 The material filed by the appellant under the heading "Particulars" sets out detailed submissions in support of the orders sought in his motion. These submissions contain a number of offensive observations or remarks concerning the trial judge. We do not intend to repeat those matters but observe that they were raised with the appellant in the course of the proceedings today.
10 It will be observed that the appellant has covered a great deal of ground in the material he has filed. However, what he has singularly failed to do has been to file any submissions in accordance with directions made by the Full Bench on 12 October 2005. Also, the material and submissions he has filed have been filed so out of step with the directions made that the respondents, and the purported additional respondents, would be unlikely to be able to deal with them fully today if it had been decided by the Full Bench to do so. Certainly the approach the appellant has adopted has deprived the Full Bench of the assistance it was entitled to in the form of written submissions from the respondents.
11 The resulting unsatisfactory situation is plainly attributable to the approach taken by the appellant. We are of course very mindful that he is an unrepresented litigant and we have had regard to the evidence he gives and statements he makes as to his personal situation which includes reference to the facts that he is a homeless person presently having the use of a garage at Port Kembla, that he has almost no funds and is dependent on the receipt of a Centrelink job search allowance of $404 per fortnight. We have great sympathy for his personal plight.
12 What then, in the light of the present unsatisfactory situation as to the application for leave to appeal and the related appeal, should the Full Bench do? We do not see any alternative but to make directions setting down the application for leave and, contingently, for the appeal and, in that regard, to make directions for the proper preparation of those hearings and to attempt to place the proceedings in some kind of proper order. There is a further matter arising from the apparent intention of the appellant to commence contempt proceedings.
13 The proper ordering of the proceedings is not without some substantial difficulty. Our major concerns arise from, first, the attempt to use the appeal proceedings to launch a multiplicity of contempt proceedings in respect of alleged contempts in other proceedings and, second, the making by the appellant of a series of scandalous statements concerning the trial judge in the material he has recently filed. We shall deal with each of those matters in turn and then make directions for the fixing of the hearing dates, filing submissions, appeal books etc.
14 The apparent attempt to bring contempt proceedings in these appeal proceedings should not be permitted. Although this Court, its associated tribunal the Industrial Relations Commission, and our predecessors, have always attempted to avoid an over-strict procedural approach, contempt proceedings, by their very nature, should observe basic procedural requirements and formalities. Similarly, courts should be astute to ensure that such proceedings are not brought in such a way as to embarrass the conduct of other proceedings and that such proceedings should be conducted in a proper and orderly way. We are therefore not prepared to permit this appeal to become proceedings of a different kind. Any contempt proceedings the appellant might wish to commence must be initiated either in the initial proceedings or in separate proceedings which, if brought, will be allocated in the usual way.
15 Returning then to procedural aspects of the appellant's Notice of Motion, we have not been persuaded that any of the three orders he seeks should be made. There is no practical way in which the first order could be made consistent with giving the respondents a fair hearing. We should also note that an assumption made in framing this order is that the appellant is entitled to bifurcate his proceedings to seek some kind of summary relief. We are not persuaded that this is an appropriate course.
16 To the extent that the appellant seeks expedition of his appeal we will factor that consideration into our directions which we will subsequently make, giving priority to the appeal to the extent that is feasible to do so in terms of the Court's commitments and the need to give an adequate time for preparation by all parties. The first date we will fix is likely, in any event, to be the first date consistent with proper preparation of the appeal.
17 We have earlier dealt with the substance of the second order sought. The order will not be made.
18 The third order sought was explained by the appellant at the hearing today as being advanced in support of the first order in the sense that if the Court did not make the precise order he sought as order (1), he would then proceed to the Court of Appeal and he should have the appeal stayed for that purpose. On analysis, the order lacks any proper bases for it to be made and it is also dismissed.
19 The appellant's Notice of Motion of 8 November 2005 is dismissed as is that part of his Notice of Motion of 11 October 2005 which seeks a bifurcated appeal process.
20 These rulings leave the issue whether the material earlier referred to should remain on the Court file. In respect of that material we note the terms of Rules 13 and 121 of the Industrial Relations Commission Rules which provide:
Rule 13 Scandal, etc.
13(1) A tribunal may order to be struck out of any document any matter which is scandalous, frivolous, vexatious, irrelevant or otherwise oppressive.