ustice Katrina Banks-Smith of the FCA spent nearly two years to decide a protection visa appeal in a migration case involving Vietnamese boat people.
The hearing was held on November 3, 2022, and 22 months later on September 12, 2024, HH gave reasons why the appellants shouldn’t have protection visas.
It’s been a long haul for these appellants, who have been in limbo since they arrived over 11 years ago. In July 2021 they fell into the court of Judge Sal Vasta, who also said NO. Another two-and-a-bit years after that Banks-Smith said NO again.
CTV20 v Minister for Rejections and Expulsions
≈ ≈ ≈
It would be remiss to exclude WA Supremo Justice Jenny Hill from the updated results of the Tortoise Handicap Derby at Belmont Park.
Taboref Pty Ltd as Trustee for the Penn Family Trust v Acquest Property Pty Ltd (in liq.) was a dispute about who is entitled to Unit 4B, Wayside Court, Ravenswood – a mortgagee claiming vacant possession or residential tenants of the property.
It was heard on June 27, 2023 and 14 months later, delivered on August 30, 2024.
Surprisingly, Justice Jenni did not include her usual boilerplate explanation that her memory had not misted in the intervening months.
Taboref Pty Ltd (trustee) v Acquest Property Pty Ltd (trustee) (In Liq.)
Raouf Abdel-Messih v Qaqish, a dispute about whether money advanced under guarantee was a loan or an investment, was delivered by Hill J on August 30, 2024, after a wait of 15 months.
This one contained her boilerplate recitation of regrets, at paras 13-17:
“The hearing of this matter took place in May 2023. Regrettably, I have not been in a position to finalise my reasons for decision as quickly as I would have liked.
In order to properly assess the parties’ cases and the evidence that was given at trial, and to ensure this has not been impaired by the delay between the hearing and the publication of these reasons, I have done the following.
First, I have refreshed my memory by reading the transcript of the witnesses’ evidence and re-listening to portions of the oral recordings of their evidence. During the course of the trial, I made contemporaneous notes, including my observations of each witness. My assessment of the witnesses has been assisted by my review of these notes, the transcript, as well as the documents that were tendered in evidence.
Second, I had the benefit of oral closing submissions from counsel for the plaintiff and from Mr Qaqish. I have taken into account their submissions, including in relation to the findings of fact that each contends should be made.
Third, the plaintiffs’ claim was, almost entirely, a documentary case. It was characterised by counsel for the plaintiff as a ‘relatively straight-forward action to recover a debt’. It was Mr Qaqish’s response to the claim that relied on the oral evidence given by the parties. My conclusions as to the credit and reliability of Mr Abdel‑Messih and Mr Qaqish are primarily based on the consistency of their evidence, including whether their evidence was consistent with contemporaneous documents and the facts that have been objectively established.”
This routine has appeared in numerous of Justice Hill’s late judgments. It is interesting, that at 15 months the parties deserve an explanation, but a wait of 14 months is not regarded as a sufficiently long to warrant the inclusion of the standard text.
Now we know her benchmark.
Raouf Abdel-Messih (trustee) v Qaqish
Peek but don’t tell
In the Reynolds v Higgins matter, your editor made an application in proceedings to the WA Supremes, on July 19, 2024, for access to an affidavit by Leon Zwier, who provided support for Ms Higgins.
For the benefit of readers, the intention was to report the affidavit.
A month later back came the orders from Registrar Acacia Hosking.
In other words, it can’t be reported without a hearing before a judge with all parties in attendance.
It must be some interesting affidavit.
Update on Friday, October 11, 2024 by Justinian
We published an earlier story about a two-and-a-half year delay by the WA Administrative Tribunal in dealing with a challenge from the Paspaley Pearling Company concerning the grant of pearl oyster leases to a commercial competitor.
Sandy Groper said the decision took as long as an oyster takes to make a pearl.
The judgment originally had the dates March 11-15, 2022 for the hearing, with delivery on September 19, 2024.
This was incorrect and the hearing dates were subsequently changed on the online version of the reasons to March 11-15, 2024 – so it was not a delayed judgment at all. The decision under review was made on February 24, 2022.
We took the story down as soon as we found out about the altered hearing dates.
Apologies to Deputy President Judge Henry Jackson and Senior Member Dr Stephen Willey for claiming they worked at a “leisurely pace”.