Déjà Vu, all over again

Contempt verdict over Plain English outburst ... Ruddster's "P" for the High Court ... Activist hack's dire warning on judicial appointments ... The living' is easy for Tubby Callinan ... Toad Hall comes to Mallesons ... Adding up the bills in the big, fat Channel Seven litigation ... Theodora reports ... From Justinian's Archive, January 16, 2008

A particularly fetching outline of the facts in a SA Supreme Court judgment came out just in time for the Christmas festivities. 

Markham Wayne Moore-McQuillan was having some strife with WorkCover. He went to the Supreme Court to appeal against convictions for obtaining benefits by dishonest means and against having his claims for weekly payments turned down. 

Justice John Perry turned him down, which led to this exchange in court: 

His Honour: "In this matter both applications are dismissed with costs. I publish my reasons.

Moore-McQuillan: Thank you for being an arsehole and thank you for being prejudicial and thank you for being a cunt.

His Honour: That's enough from you.

Moore-McQuillan: Hope you have a good fucking retirement you stupid fucking idiot. Thank Christ we are getting rid of a fucking cunt like you." 

There was also some muttering about the judge being "corrupt". 

The outburst happened the previous February. Perry retired in April 2008 and five weeks later died. 

Moore-McQuillan was charged with contempt and found guilty of that charge on December 14 by Justice Margaret Nyland. 

A report from psychiatrist Dr Jules Begg was striking. He said that Moore-McQuillan keeps it all bottled up and then explodes: 

"[The defendant] described the manner in which his verbal outbursts get his point across to the other person much more quickly than his normal reasoned argument ... [The tirade] was an example of how he could express his feelings in an eloquent manner, something which he is not normally able to do." 

≈   ≈   ≈

Spigelman: pipped at the post by KeaneForget Spiggsy. Forget Bret Walker. The well-informed money for the new CJ upon High is on Pat Keane from the Queensland Court of Appeal. 

Queenslander Rudd is now in charge and significantly Mrs "Gallstones" Rudd is a chum of Mrs Shelley Keane - not that that would be a decisive factor, only that the word "Keane" would be heard around The Lodge more than the words "Spigelman" or "Walker". 

The new crowd in Canberra are conscious of their regional strengths and that has profound implications for the High Court of New South Wales. 

Pat got his BCL from Oxon in 1977 was first in the class at Queensland Uni and has been weighed down with scholarships, prizes, medals and baubles. He was Queensland Solicitor General for 13 years.  

Keane is a contender. 

≈   ≈   ≈

Talking of which, there was that gaga column from Janet Albrechtsen just before the elections roasting Victorian AG Rob (Fuckin') Hulls for appointing judges like Chris Maxwell, Marcia Neave, Kevin Bell, Lex Lasry and Iain Ross - see: "Activist judiciary a looming menace". 

These people are dangerous, declared the pundit, because who knows what personal notions will infect their judgments. This "activist judiciary" is described as "a looming menace". 

Out of Adelaide's nowheresville Albrechtsen has been keen to ginger-up a name for herself in smokey Sydney. Consequently, she tends to be, shall we say, a bit tense. 

She points to "rumours swirling around" Julian Burnside as a possible Federal Court CJ and Prof George Williams for the High Court and warns that Labor in Canberra may end up appointing judges who "have nothing but distain for politicians and parliament and yes, the people". 

And then there was this: 

"Some wags are even saying that Labor's favourite Sydney silk, Bret Walker, is quietly boasting that he has been assured a seat on the High Court." 

Quietly boasting? Au contraire - Walker has been quietly silent. Unlike Spiggsy, the Kirbster, Margaret Cunneen, and Danny Gilbert he declined to be interviewed for the (sydney) magazine's recent spread on the top-100 "most influential". 

I'll dance naked down any street of Janet The Planet's choosing if anyone swears they've heard Walker say he has been "assured" of a place on High. 

≈   ≈   ≈

What on earth was Tubby Callinan on about in his first foray in front of the footlights since flying his perch on the High Court? 

He had a piece this month in the "Summer Living" section of The Australian headlined "For the sake of our heritage, the buck must stop somewhere". 

Basically, his "thesis" was that the state (taxpayers) should cough-up if rich landowners are disadvantaged by having their land subjected to value destroying impediments, such as heritage and preservation orders, or obligations to plant trees as opposed to having the right to chop them down. 

He thought the High Court should hop to it and devise a way for the "fair and equitable sharing of this expense". 

What was so unfair, according to The Tub, was that land owners "are precluded from unlocking the financial potential of their property ... [and] the cost of remediation will not be evenly borne". 

Like a lot of Capital C Conservatives Tub wants to capitalise the profits and socialise the losses, even when they are not necessarily losses. 

He sees things like heritage orders and tree planting as universally devaluing property, while at the same time increasing its value to the public. 

He even thinks the public should have paid the people of Tasmania for the preservation of the Franklin River. 

Talk about "summer living". 

≈   ≈   ≈

Mallesons' deliriously happy foot soldiers were bursting with anticipation as they opened their Christmas presents from the firm. 

And what lurked beneath the beguiling packaging? Why, a dressing gown for everyone. 

"How thoughtful," one of the slaves cried. "Since we just about live here, a dressing gown is perfect." 

The garment was declared to be "hospital quality". 

Co-incidentally the ABC ran Wind in the Willows as a TV Christmas special. Maybe it is the Toad Hall qualities so redolent of Mallies that one of Badger's immortal lines stayed with me. 

After a terrible trek through the woods Ratty and Mole turn up sodden wet at the hibernating animal's front door. 

"Come in," said Badger. "There's a first rate fire inside, supper's on the stove and I've a couple of spare dressing gowns." 

≈   ≈   ≈

Sackville: as he wasThe last remaining costs dispute arising from the C7 litigation saga was determined just before Christmas, with Justice Ronnie Sackville ordering Seven to pay Telstra $13 million in a "gross sum" costs. 

Some of the details may not have surfaced because of the seasonal distractions. 

The order for $13 million was $3 million less than Telstra wanted, but over $4 million more than Seven's experts said it should have to pay.

Seven and Telstra agreed that because of the complexity and scale of the case, it was best to go for a gross sum order where the judge broadly assesses the costs and makes an estimate.

The alternative would have involved "expense, delay and aggravation", whereby, in Ronnie's words: 

"[A] taxing officer meticulously analyses a specially prepared bill of costs by reference to individual items, some of which have distinctly Dickensian overtones." 

Each side proffered their own costs assessment expert (Alyson Ashe for Telstra and Elizabeth Harris for Seven), with Sackville generally more sympathetic to Telstra's view of the bill. 

Regarding the telco's use of Alan Archibald QC, the judge thought it right and proper that it spent up on a big-gun counsel. However, he wrote: 

"I am not convinced that it was necessary or proper (in the relevant sense) for Telstra to engage senior counsel from Melbourne, as distinct from Sydney. In my view, travel expenses connected with Mr Archibald's retainer would not be allowed on a taxation."

Nor did the judge think it necessary or proper for Telstra to spend over $200,000 on experts early in proceedings, whose advice was not ultimately required. 

In the end, the subtractions made by the judge from the $16 million claimed by Telstra amounted to just $3 million:

• Professional costs: $1.0 million

• Unqualified contributors: $0.3 million

• Senior and junior counsels' fees: $1.5 million

• Experts' fees: $0.2 million

Sackville had earlier rejected News Limited's bid for indemnity costs, while PBL's and Optus' costs have already been settled with Seven.