Search
This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian News

Balkan intrigues ... Old coppers stagger into the Croatian Six inquiry ... 15-year jail terms in 1980 for alleged terrorism ... Miscarriage of justice under review ... Verballing ... Loading-up ... Old fashioned detective "work" ... Evidence so far ... Hamish McDonald reports ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Splitting heirs ... How to get rid of the Royals – a Republican tours Orstraya … Underneath their robes – sexual harassment on the bench … Credit card fees – so tricky that only economists know what to do … Muted response to Drumgold vindication … Vale Percy Allan ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Blue sky litigation ... Another costly Lehrmann decision ... One more spin on the never-never ... Arguable appeal discovered in the bowels of the Gazette of Law & Journalism ... Odious litigants ... Could Lee J have got it wrong on the meaning of rape? ... Calpurnia reports from the Defamatorium ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


This area does not yet contain any content.
Justinian's Bloggers

Online incitements ... Riots in English cities fed by online misinformation about refugees ... Policing and prosecution policies ... Fast and furious processing of offenders ... Online Safety Act grapples with new challenges ... Increased policing of speech on tech platforms ... Hugh Vuillier reports from London ... Read more >> 

"Mistakes of law or fact are a professional inevitability for judges, tribunal members and administrative decision makers."  

Paul Brereton, Commissioner of the National Corruption Concealment Commission, downplaying the Inspector's finding of bias and procedural unfairness with his conflicted involvement in the decision making about Robodebt referrals ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Vale Percy Allan AM ... Obit for friend and fellow-traveller ... Prolific writer on economics and politics ... Public finance guru ... Technocrat with humanity and broad interests ... Theatre ... Animals ... Art ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

A triumph for Victorian morality ... Ashton v Pratt ... In the sack with Dick Pratt ... Meretricious sexual services renders contract void on public policy grounds ... Justice Paul Brereton applies curious moral standard ... A whiff of hypocrisy ... Doubtful finding ... Artemus Jones reporting ... From Justinian's Archive, January 24, 2012 ... Who knew the NACC commissioner had strong views on the sanctity of marriage ... Read more ... 


 

 

Main | It's a Dizzy world »
Wednesday
Oct092024

Regrets

The then Media Watch host and one of the country's most magnificent silks birched in the High Court for not sticking to the rules ... Scratchy Stu ... From Justinian's Archive, May 1997

Littlemore, in a gleaming, unscratched car

It was distressing to see barrister S. Littlemore QC, the noted duco tormentor, being set upon in the High Court. 

How can a important man, with a large extramural career devoted to ridding society of the influences of an evil media, be expected to know, let alone follow, all the trifling rules of court?

Justice Michael McHugh was completely and utterly out of line with his penny ante objections. 

Reputedly on one occasion the self-effacing barrister had to ask Qantas cabin crew: "Don't you know who I am?" 

Littlemore could just as readily ask the same question of Justice McHugh. 

How he endured the interruptions during the special leave application concerning the personal injuries matter of Wynbergen v Hoyts Corporation is beyond endurance. 

Justice McHugh: Mr Littlemore, before you continue there is something I have to draw your attention to and that is your summary of argument does not comply with the rules. It tells the court nothing as to what your argument is.

Littlemore: I apologise for that. I was unaware that it was not in compliance with the rules, your Honour.

McHugh: We want to know what your argument is. Your refer [to] 'references to the argument in the court below', and that is not the question that is posed by the rules. And there is a reference to Justice Clarke at 75.8 and 78.1. I have checked those references. It is impossible to determine what your argument is by reason of those references. I do not know whether it is line 8 or line 1 or point 8 on the page, but whichever of those alternatives it is, it does not assist us. I have drawn your attention to it and in future it ought to be known that it is not sufficient just to refer to passages in the judgments below. The rule requires the party's argument, although briefly. I do not want to embarrass you in any way but I just draw your attention for the future.

Littlemore: I regret it did not meet with your Honour's needs. 

 

Reader Comments

There are no comments for this journal entry. To create a new comment, use the form below.
Editor Permission Required
You must have editing permission for this entry in order to post comments.