Croker v Deputy Registrar of the High Court

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT (ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL) BEAUMONT J: 1 This is an application for leave to appeal, which was before me on 10 September 2002, when, for the reasons I then gave, I stood the matter over until today. As I said in par 3 of those reasons, in my opinion, Mr Croker's point was premature at that stage, since I was not satisfied that he could show a real need to photocopy any material. However, as I went on to say, I proposed to give Mr Croker an opportunity to demonstrate this to the satisfaction of the docket Judge. By written submission filed on 30 September 2002, the applicant has made the following submission: "On the tenth of September in the year two thousand and two the applicant demonstrated to the docket Judge that the documents would be annexed to the final affidavit of evidence and furnished annotations would be commentary to the documents. The docket Judge stated that the requested documents would be better prepared in the way of a bundle of documents complimenting [sic] the affidavit and requested that all documents be marked with numbers stickers in the registry. The request in the application was as follows:- '(3) An Order that compliance with Federal Court of Australia Regulations 1978 (Cth) Reg 2 in regard to photocopying fees be adhered to;" This request was based on several statutory standings and common law in allowing a litigant to copy documents at no charge that are held in the registry of the Federal court of Australia and to prepare his case in accordance with statutory and other legal requirements. As to date no direct answer has been given to the request for compliance and no direct answer to the request for leave to appeal has been forwarded. It is alleged gross infractions of the applicants rights has to date been installed on the applicant and further gross infractions of the applicants rights seem to be pending it is requested that the first application be ruled on it merits and that the judgment of the docket judge by attended by sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court and the substantial injustice that the docket judge has installed on the applicant be set aside. As to the requested adjournment medical evidence has been forwarded to Deputy District Registrar stating time constraints caused by the pending medical procedure. If further consideration could be attended to the application for an adjournment and the matter stood over to after the twentieth day of October personal appearance and a more substantial argument would be filed." 2 There has been correspondence between Mr Croker and the Acting District Registrar in which Mr Croker has requested that the proceeding today be adjourned for medical reasons. It was suggested to Mr Croker that a medical certificate be provided to the Court, and there is now with the papers a medical certificate from the Sydney Hospital certifying that Mr Croker attended the hospital on 2 October 2002 and would be unfit for work from 2 October to 20 October 2002 inclusive, due to "Rhinoplasty". The certificate is dated 25 September 2002. 3 I am still not satisfied that Mr Croker has demonstrated to the Court any need to pursue his proposed appeal. However, given his medical condition, I will not proceed to dispose of the matter finally. The appropriate order that I will make, in all the circumstances, is as follows: