Case: State of Queensland v JL Holdings (1996/1997) [1997] HCA 1 ; 189 CLR 146
Outcome: applied
More recently in time the High Court has had occasion in State of Queensland v JL Holdings (1996/1997) [1997] HCA 1 ; 189 CLR 146 to consider the place of case management systems in the obtaining of justice according to law. Their Honours cite two authorities which, in my opinion, have pertinence in the context of the present application. At page 152 their Honours cite with approval what they describe as a well known passage in the judgment of Bowen LJ in Cropper v Smith (1884) 26 Ch D 700 at 710, where his Lordship said: Now, I think it is a well established principle that the object of courts is to decide the rights of the parties and not to punish them for mistakes they make in the conduct of their cases by deciding otherwise than in accordance with their rights. Speaking for myself and in conformity with what I have heard laid down by the other division of the Court of Appeal and by myself as a member of it, I know of no kind of error or mistake which, if not fraudulent or intended to over reach, the court ought not to correct if it can be done without injustice to the other party. Courts do not exist for the sake of discipline but for the sake of deciding matters in controversy and I do not regard such amendment as a matter of favour or of grace. 24 Their Honours continue in Queensland v JL Holdings at page 154 that they did not regard the passages that they cited from Sali v SPC as sanctioning any departure from Cropper v Smith and accepted in cases such as Clough and Rogers v Frog (1974) 48 ALJR 481. They continue, by way of observation, that: Sali v SPC was a case concerning the refusal of an adjournment in relation to which proper principles of case management have a particular relevance. And I considered they had just such relevance in refusing the application made by Olivaylle in December. 25 It is also observed by Dawson, Gaudron and McHugh JJ in Queensland v JL Holdings at page 154 that: Case management is not an end in itself. It is an important and useful aid for ensuring the prompt and efficient disposal of litigation but it ought always to be borne in mind, even in changing times, that the ultimate aim of a court is the attainment of justice and no principle of case management can be allowed to supplant that aim. Those are observations reflect the views of an ultimate appellant court. Obviously enough, their application will differ in the context of particular cases and especially will differ in relation to an application of this nature, made in the course of a trial, in terms of whether prejudice will be occasioned to an opposing party. It must be said that in this court the reception of Queensland v JL Holdings has not been, with the very greatest of respect, an entirely subordinate one. In this regard and in the very particular context of the case before his Honour, in Black and Decker Australasia Pty Limited v GMCA Pty Limited [2007] FCA 1623 on 23 October 2007, Finkelstein J observed at para 3 that a state of affairs whereby case management directions were overlooked had as one of its chief causes what his Honour described as "the chilling effect" of the High Court's decision in Queensland v JL Holdings . 26 With the very greatest respect, I do not regard Queensland v JL Holdings as having a chilling effect. It seems to me that there is a need not to confuse the particular principle enunciated in JL Holdings with the outcome in particular cases. In terms of principle and in the context of this particular case, the most material consideration in my opinion is, is there prejudice and, if so, what is its nature and extent and having regard to that, what impact does that have on the discretion to permit the reception of some or all of the contents of Mr Lorenz's affidavit as evidence in the trial?