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

Judicial shockers ... Latest from the trouble prone Queensland branch of the Federales ... Administrative law upsets ... Sandy Street overturned ... On the level in Canberra ... Missing aged care accountant ... Law shop managing director skewered ... Ginger Snatch reports from courtrooms around the nation ... Read more >> 

Politics Media Law Society


Polly gets a cracker ... The Parrot falls from his bully pulpit … Performances … The end of the Wharf Revue … Bruce McClintock on stage at The Onion Club … Freaks on the loose in Washington ... Read on ... 

Free Newsletter
Justinian Columnists

It's Hitlerish ... Reelection of a charlatan ... Republicans take popular vote for the first time in 20 years ... Amnesia ... Trashing a democracy ... Trump and his team of troubled men ... Mainstream media wilts in the eye of the storm ... Depravity, greed and revenge are the new normal ... Roger Fitch files from Washington ... Read more >> 

Blow the whistle

 

News snips ...


The life, loves, triumphs and disappointments of Frosty Tom Hughes ... 1923-2024 ... More >> 

Justinian's Bloggers

A trial for France ... French teacher beheaded after showing caricatures of Mohammed to the class ... Young student's false claim ends in tragedy ... Misinformation takes off on social media ... Media storm ... Religion infiltrates public life ... Trials unfold ... Hugh Vuillier reports ... Read more >> 

"Over many years, certain journalists employed by Nine (formerly Fairfax) newspapers have been resentful of our client’s prominence as a commentator on many political and cultural issues, and the malicious and concocted allegations giving rise to the imputations constitute a concerted attempt to destroy our client’s reputation. 

Following the Sydney Morning Herald's exposure ... Mark O'Brien, Alan Jones' solicitor, December 12, 2023  ... Read more flatulence ... 


Justinian Featurettes

The great interceptor ... Rugby League ... Dennis Tutty and the try he shouldn't have scored ... Case that changed the face of professional sport ... Growth of the player associations, courtesy of the Barwick High Court ... Free kick ... Restraint of trade ... Braham Dabscheck comments ... Read more ... 


Justinian's archive

Rosenblum v Foreman ... From Justinian's archive ... March 1995 ... When Rupert Rosenblum went to court over a missing house ... Memories of Carol Foreman and her backdated document ... Rocking the foundations of the admin of justice ... 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.