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

The law and its miracles ... Party allies selected for judicial elevation in Qld ... Justice Jenni Hill's brother ... More entries for the Golden Tortoise award ... Federal Court muddles the maths, again ... Theodora reports ... Read more >>

Politics Media Law Society


Rupert World ... Lord Moloch’s pal Doug the Diva – driving Washington spare … News UK’s model for unionism … What next for the Washington Post? … Concealed coal lobbyists running an anti-Teal campaign … More corruption busting for Stinging Nettle … The litigation industry spawned by Lehrmann ... Read on >> 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

Party time for Dicey ... Heydon's book - a pathway to rehabilitation ... The predatory man and the clever intellect - all wrapped up in the one person ... Academic tome and cancel agenda ... Despite the plaudits the record of abuse doesn't vanish ... Book launch with young associates at a safe distance ... Procrustes thinks out loud ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


Being a lawyer can be sheer misery ... Psychological distress ... Workplace incivility ... Lack of support ... Rotten culture ... Report on wellbeing ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

Governance turmoil at Tiny Town Law Society ... Night of the long knives ... Lakeside in Canberra ... ACT Law Society upheaval over governance changes ... Bodies carted out of the council room ... Blood on the carpet ... Fraught litigation another distraction ... From Gang Gang ... Read more >> 

"One wonders whether a murderer who later contributes to society might be treated better that Heydon has been." 

Janet Albrechtsen in The Australian seeking the resurrection of former justice Dyson Heydon whose sexual predations ruined the legal careers of young women associates at the High Court ... April 11, 2025 ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

Letter from Rome ... Judges on strike ... Too much "reform" ... Berlusconi legacy ... Referendum on the way ... Constitutional court inflames the Meloni regime with decision on boat people ... Insults galore ... Silvana Olivetti reports ... Read more >> 


Justinian's archive

Tea is for Tippy ... Life of a tiffstaff ... Bright, ambitious and, when it comes to the crucial things, hopeless ... Milking the glory of the gig ...  Introducing Tippy, our new blogger filing from within the concrete cage at Queens Square ... From Justinian's Archive, March 15, 2010 ...  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.