SEARCH
Justinian News

Time's Up for Naughty Nathan ... Recommendation that horrible NSW solicitor be derolled ... Misuse of online funding campaigns ... Spraying ripe and abusive language ... Trolling Robert Beech-Jones ... So unfit and improper as to be beyond reeducation ... Anthony Kanaan reports ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society

Perils of the Defamatorium ... Lovely Linda Reynolds’ “victory” leaves her underwater … Politics, sex, law, and money … Injuries galore … The art of Tottling … Where’s the serious harm? … Trust me … Jurisdictional backwater ... Read more >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Act of gracelessness ... Kathleen Folbigg's miserable ex gratia payout ... Comparable awards in other miscarriage cases ... Weasel words from the NSW Premier ... Need for a proper system of compensation assessment ... Procrustes in a lather ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


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

Postcard from London ... Summertime - And the living' is easy ... Votes for 16-year olds ... Paralegal's theft by pen ... Spy helping British intelligence from his job at Border Force ... Super-injunction comes out of the shadows ... Feed them strawberries and cream ... Floyd Alexander-Hunt files from Blighty ... Read more >> 

"I actually never saw the President in any type of massage setting. I never witnessed the President in any inappropriate setting in any way. The President was never inappropriate with anybody. In the times that I was with him, he was a gentleman in all respects ... Trump was always very cordial and very kind to me. And I just want to say that I find, I admire his extraordinary achievement in becoming the president now."

Convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell interviewed by Trump's former lawyer Todd Blanche, now Deputy Attorney General ... July 25, 2025. Interviews released by DOJ, August 22, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Schmoozing and Betrayal ... Judge Water Softener rides into Integrityville mounted high on his horse ... Judicial review of corruption finding ... Unprecedented assistance to morals monitor ... Plenty to think about ... Court reporter Ginger Snatch files ... Read more >> 

 

 

Justinian's archive

The Tamil Times ... The corruption wars ... Blitzkrieg from The Australian's legal affairs man ... Campaigns to sink ICAC and 18C ... Battles lost in the trenches ... Where are they now? ... Extravagant fulminations ... From Justinian's Archive, April 8, 2017 ... Read more >> 


 

 

« A life in Commonwealth cars is not a good look | 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.