News from the bush capital ... ACT Law Society faces unprecedented vigorous three way presidential contest ... Justice Refshauge delivers 30-months reserved damages judgment after nudge from Justinian ... Latest from the Molonglo
The toy-town law 'n' order society in Canberra has been thrown into conniptions over the 2011 presidential elections.
Normally the presidency of the ACT Law Society is determined by the meritorious principle of "Muggins turn".
Whomever stays with it longer and turns up to more meetings than anyone else ultimately will crowned, unopposed.
Barralet: normally it would be her turn at the helmThis system has provided the profession with charismatic leaders, year in, year out.
Normally it would be the turn this year of the senior vice Kay Barralet.
The trouble is, for the first time in living memory, there is an election, with three candidates vying for the gilded bauble, which carries an honorarium of around $100,000 a year for three or four days a week of meetings and greetings.
Kay has been on the council for eight years and normally would be a shoo-in (as many think she should be).
However, two weeks before the ballot opened Brian Hatch threw his hat in the ring.
Brian is a former treasurer and vice-prez of the society and, as he says in his election blurb, "I will be able to get started immediately without the need to come to grips with the workings of the society".
Actually, he has hung out his shingle over the border in Monaro Street Queanbeyan. Apparently, that has something to do with a restraint agreement with a previous law firm that says he can't trade in the ACT.
Blumer: common law championThe third presidential candidate is Nooraini Blumer from the local PI law shop Blumers.
You can see her in action, live, on the firm's website.
Noor has never been on the law society council, but there is much at stake for the PI industry in the capital territory as proposed legislation is likely to cut a swathe through the common law, which largely still applies in the ACT accident business.
At present the local Greens have help it up, but vested interests are nervy.
The election is in full swing and closes on September 15.
* * *
It's heartening to see the power of my relentless cyber press having a positive effect.
Twenty-eight days after we wrote about the ACT's reserved judgment protocol's failure to produce a result, Justice Refshauge produced a judgment - approximately two-and-a-half years late.
Multiple notices under the protocol went unanswered by the ACT bar 'n' grill and the Supreme Court.
Refshauge: sincere regretsEventually there were murmurings that counsel was advising a trip to the High Court with a writ of mandamus.
Justinian burst into print about the 30-month delay on August 3.
On August 31 Justice Roughshagger delivered a detailed, and generous, judgment on damages (liability not being an issue) in Leighton v Blundell.
In his final paragraph HH said:
"I sincerely regret that the busyness of the court has delayed the delivery of judgment and these reasons in this matter. Nevertheless, I have read carefully the entire transcript and the exhibits tendered at the trial as well as my contemporaneous notes. These have resulted in a good recall of the proceedings and of the witnesses giving evidence, notwithstanding the passage of time."
Where have we read that before?
Refshauge published something similar with his reasons in QBE Insurance (Australia) Ltd v Insurance Australia Ltd (March 11, 2011):
"It is extremely regrettable that the busy workload of the court has delayed the delivery of judgment and these reasons for longer than is desirable. Nevertheless, I have carefully read the whole of the transcript and the exhibits that were tendered at the hearing as well as perusing my contemporaneous notes. I found that I had a good recall of the proceedings and the demeanour of Mr Rice as he gave evidence, notwithstanding the passage of time."
That judgment also dragged the chain by about two-and-a-half years.