Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
The Castan Centre for Human Rights Law, The Fertility Control Clinic (A firm) and The Human Rights Law Centre appearing as amici curiae, each limited to its written submissions
LibertyWorks Inc appearing as amicus curiae, limited to its written submissions
Submitting appearance for the third respondent and no appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearances for the third to tenth, twelfth, thirteenth and sixteenth respondents and no appearance for the second, eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth respondent
Submitting appearances for the twelfth and thirteenth respondents. No appearance for the tenth, fourteenth and fifteenth respondent. The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration appearing

as amicus curiae limited to its written submissions.
Submitting appearances for the twelfth and thirteenth respondents. No appearance for the eleventh, fourteenth and fifteenth respondents. The Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration appearing

as amicus curiae limited to its written submissions.
Australian Human Rights Commission appearing as amicus curiae, limited to its written submissions
No appearance for the second respondents. Submitting appearance for the third respondent.
Australian Human Rights Commission appearing as amicus curiae, limited to its written submissions
Submitting appearance for the defendants
Submitting appearance for the respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent.
Submitting appearances for the third and fourth respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second and third respondents
No appearance for Respondent (Lambie)
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for fourth respondent
Submitting appearance for fourth respondent
Submitting appearance for second defendant
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
No appearance for Respondent
Transcript unavailable, made assumption that junior counsel did not speak
Transcript unavailable, made assumption that junior counsel did not speak
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for first and second respondents
First respondent filed submitting appearance
No appearance for first respondent
Transcript says that appear for 1st & 3rd respondents but order says that appeared for 1st to 3rd respondents and "Submitting appearance for the fourth respondent"
Unable to find the transcript for this or M144/2016. The document saved in oral arguments is not the transcript and it also does not appear to be on auslii. Gender and title of reps has been gleaned from Google and assumptions made about who spoke.
Unable to find the transcript for this or S249/2016. The document saved in oral arguments is not the transcript and it also does not appear to be on auslii. Gender and title of reps has been gleaned from Google and assumptions made about who spoke.
Argument given by the junior in the intervener team rather than the senior
Submitting appearance for the second defendant
Submitting appearances for the respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent in each matter
Submitting appearance for the second respondent in each matter
Submitting appearances for the fourth and fifth defendants in M105/2017
Submitting appearance for the second defendant in M106/2018
Human Rights Law Centre, as amicus curiae (limited to written submissions).
Counsel McBeth is listed in transcript as Mr but when he is introduced by his senior she refers to him as Dr
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Court of Disputed Returns
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the third to sixth respondents
Submitting appearance for the first respondent, and the fourth to twelfth respondents
Submitting appearance for the respondent. S B McElwaine SC with R L A Munnings for the Attorney-
General of the State of Tasmania, as contradictor (instructed by Crown Law (Tas))
Submitting appearance for the first defendant
Submitting appearance for the first to seventh defendants
Submitting appearance for the second defendants
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Transcript 106 (the first day of this combined matter is missing). Only the senior counsel speak on the second day so it has been assumed that the junior counsel also did not speak on the first day. As the intro of the legal teams was missing I have been unable to determine the gender of EO Brown (a google search has been fruitless) hence their title has been coded as other and their gender as unspecified
Transcript 106 (the first day of this combined matter is missing). Only the senior counsel speak on the second day so it has been assumed that the junior counsel also did not speak on the first day. As the intro of the legal teams was missing I have been unable to determine the gender of EO Brown (a google search has been fruitless) hence their title has been coded as other and their gender as unspecified
Transcript 106 (the first day of this combined matter is missing). Only the senior counsel speak on the second day so it has been assumed that the junior counsel also did not speak on the first day. As the intro of the legal teams was missing I have been unable to determine the gender of EO Brown (a google search has been fruitless) hence their title has been coded as other and their gender as unspecified
There was no hearing for this case hence variable 12 has been coded as '4' for all counsel
Transcript shows that Sofronoff (for the appellant) advised the court that "My learned pupil, MS P. KINCHINA , is attending with us".
Submitting appearance for the first defendant. Also transcript says "MR R. MERKEL, QC: If the Court pleases, I appear with my learned friends, MR B.K. LIM and MR C.J. TRAN,  for the plaintiff, and for the two applicants for joinder, Ms Scurry and Ms Stewart." Nothing has been coded in relation to these "two applicants for joinder".
Transcript shows that Sofronoff (for the respondent) advised the court that "My learned pupil, MS P. KINCHINA , is attending with us".
Submitting appearance for the second defendant
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the third respondent
Submitting appearance for the second and third respondents
Intervener and amicus given "leave limited to the written submissions" but appeared in court and introduced themselves
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the third respondent. Submitting appearance for the fourth to twenty-first respondents. No appearance for the twenty-second and twenty-third respondents
No appearance for the third to ninth respondents. Submitting appearance for

the tenth to thirteenth respondents.
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second defendant
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Amicus given "leave to intervene as amicus

curiae but be confined to your written submissions" but appeared in court and introduced themself
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first respondent. Submitting appearance for the third respondent.
amici curiae instructed by Australian Government Solicitor
no hearing
Additionally Mr JL Southalan from Australian Lawyers for Human Rights sought leave to appear as amicus curiae at the hearing and this was denied.
Submitting appearances for the fifth and seventh to tenth respondents
A Gender Agenda Inc, sough leave to appear as amicus curiae. The senior counsel introduced them, they were given "leave to appear as amicus curiae to the extent of the receipt of its written submissions", and then were excused from the bar table.
No appearance for the third to sixth respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Mr GJ Williams is referred to by Mr Robinson as 'Professor'.
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the third defendant
When the senior counsel handed over to his 'junior' (J
 G Renwick SC) he referred to him as Dr Renwick
When the senior counsel handed over to his 'junior' (J
 G Renwick SC) he referred to him as Dr Renwick
When the senior counsel handed over to his 'junior' (J
 G Renwick SC) he referred to him as Dr Renwick
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second to fifth respondents. Mr D Shavin QC (with Ms CI Cunliffe) for the Institute of Patent and Trade Mark Attorneys, sought leave to intervene but were denied. Mr AJ Ryan SC for the Generic
Medicines Industry Association sought leave to intervene and was denied."
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
no hearing
Submitting appearances for the fourth, fifth and sixth respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Second respondent (Mr C Corneloup) appeared in person and represented himself. Human Rights Law Centre sought leave to intervene as amicus. The team was present in the court and was introduced by Mr R Merkel QC and they were advised that they could intervene on written submissions (which they then supplemented).
Submitting appearance for the first defendant. The legal team for the amicus was present in the court and was introduced by Mr AS Bell SC and they were advised that they could intervene on written submissions only.
When handing over to Mr Renwick, Mr Sexton refers to him as 'Dr Renwick' but he is Mr in the transcript
Submitting appearance for the third and fourth respondents
Submitting appearance for the third and fourth respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the third respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
no hearing
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Mr GMG McIntyre SC introduced himself to the Court and sought leave to intervene on behalf of Biddy Bunwarrie and Others (Nomads). He was denied. The SG for WA introduced himself & was advised that the court would rely on his written submissions. PL Gore (for multiple respondents) introduced himself to the court & then was never called on to speak. Submitting appearances for the thirty-second and thirty-fourth respondents. No appearance for the thirty-fifth to forty-second, forty-fourth, forty-eighth and forty-ninth respondents.
Ms KL Eastman SC introduced herself and her junior to the court as amicus for for the Australian Human Rights Commission. She was given leave to appear but with written submissions only.
no hearing
Mr VB Hughston SC introduced himself and his junior to the court as interveners for South Australian Native Title Services Limited. He was given leave to intervene but with written submissions only.
No appearance for the fourth respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
The SA Solicitor General refers to Kirk as Dr Kirk but this is not transcript has his title as Mr
CA Moore (Australian Recording Industry Association Limited), MR Hall (Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance and Screen Actorsí Guild), and EJC Heerey (Australian Digital Alliance Ltd) all sought leave to intervene and appeared in court and introduced themselves. Moore and Hall were in support of appellants and Heerey didnt specify.  All were denied leave to intervene.
SG Cth'"intervening in the interest of the respondents', SG SA ' intervening in support of the second and third respondents.'  Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Submitting appearance for the second defendant. SG Cth intervening in interest of first defendant. RM Mitchell (obo AG WA) intervening in support of first defendant
SG Cth intervening in interests of the respondent
No appearance for second respondents
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Ms KA Stern appeared for the Attorney-General for the Commonwealth seeking leave to appear for a limited purpose only. (instructed by Australian Government Solicitor) and was advised "The view of the Court is that you should renew your application if the occasion arises to do so."
Submitting appearance for the second and third respondents
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Submitting appearance for the fourteenth respondent
Submitting appearance for the twelfth respondent
Submitting appearance for the fourth to eighth respondents
Submitting appearance for the third to seventh respondents
Hearing on papers only
MK Moshinksky SC (Cancer Council Australia) sought leave to appear as an amicus and appeared in court and introduced himself and his team.  He was denied leave to intervene.
MK Moshinksky SC (Cancer Council Australia) sought leave to appear as an amicus and appeared in court and introduced himself and his team.  He was denied leave to intervene.
Submitting appearance for the third and fourth respondents
Intervention on behalf of the AG NSW is in support of the fifth defendant.
Submitting appearance for the first defendant
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
SG SA intervening in support of the respondents. SG Vic appeared for AG Vic and AG Qld. Submitting appearance for the fifth respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearances for the second to fourth respondents
No appearance for the first respondent is noted on the Order but the transcript records "Mr L Machee - If the Court pleases, I appear as a personal representative of Mr Paul Chen. " He was advised that his assistance would not be required.
SG WA intervened on behalf and appeared for SA as well as WA. Dr W Babeck introduced himself to the court and sought leave to intervene as an amicus on behalf of the Australian German Lawyers Association. He was denied leave to intervene.
Submitting appearance for the fourth defendant
Submitting appearance for the first and second respondents
SG WA stated that he was intervening in support of the Commonwealth.  Additionally when CJ French spoke to JG Renwick he addressed him as Dr eventhough the transcript records him as Mr.
Submitting appearance for the second defendant
Cth SG lead the Cth team at the hearing on 8 - 10 Feb 2011 but HC Burmester lead the team on 7 June 2011. KM Richardson was the junior for the SG NSW at the hearing on 8 - 10 Feb 2011 and was replaced by ML Rabsch at the hearing on 7 June 2011.
Submitting appearance for the respondent
The SG SA also appeared and intervened on behalf of AG Tasmania.  He stated that he was intervening in support of the respondents.
The SG SA also appeared and intervened on behalf of AG Tasmania.  He stated that he was intervening in support of the respondents.
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
four other parties sought leave to intervene or as amicus and were denied.
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Submitting appearance for the first and second respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearances for the second and fourth respondents. No appearance for the third respondent
Submitting appearance for the second, third and fourth respondents. No appearance for the fifth respondent
At the hearing on 27 July 2010, T F Danos' junior was J E McLoughlin
 he was replaced by PD Herzfeld at the hearing on 31 Aug 2010
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
The SG NSW appeared at the hearing on 20 & 21 April 2010 supported by JG Renwick. At the hearing on 17 June 2010 Renwick appeared alone.  The SG Qld appeared at the hearing on 20 & 21 April 2010 but at the hearing on 17 June 2010 he was replaced by PJ Dvis.
Submitting appearance for the third respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for first respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
Pape, who represented himself, was a lawyer
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for first defendant
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for first respondent
Submitting appearance for seventh respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
Submitting appearance for second respondent
No appearance for first respondent, submitting appearance for second and third respondents
Submitting appearance for third and fourth respondents
No appearance for second and third respondents
Submitting appearance for the fourth and fifth respondents. Hanks, Donoghue & Gordon appeared together (with Hanks leading)  as amici in opposing the appeal. They dont appear to have been retained by any particular party. It is a bit obsure in the transcript
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second and third respondents
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
MA Perry QC is titled ' Ms' in the transcript but she is addressed as 'Dr' by the Chief Justice.
Submitting appearance for the first and third respondents
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Intervener, Rio Tinto Limited (in support of the appellants)
Intervener, Rio Tinto Limited (in support of the appellants)
No transcript for this case
No transcript for this case
Submitting appearance for
 the second respondent
A S Bell SC is referred to in the transcript as 'Mr' but the CJ calls him 'Dr".
I J Hardingham QC is referred to in the transcript as 'Mr' but the CJ calls him 'Dr".
I J Hardingham QC is referred to in the transcript as 'Mr' but the CJ calls him 'Dr".
Submitting appearance for the third respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearances for the first and second respondents
Submitting appearances for the first and second respondents
Submitting appearance for the defendant
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the fifth respondent. No appearance for the sixth respondent.
Submitting appearance for the first defendant
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
GJ Lyon SC is shown in the transcript as 'Mr" but the CJ refers to him as 'Dr'.
GJ Lyon SC is shown in the transcript as 'Mr" but the CJ refers to him as 'Dr'.
GJ Lyon SC is shown in the transcript as 'Mr" but the CJ refers to him as 'Dr'.
GJ Lyon SC is shown in the transcript as 'Mr" but the CJ refers to him as 'Dr'.
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
While C.L. PANNAM, QC is 'Mr' in the transcript the CJ refers to him as 'Dr".
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first and third to tenth respondents
No appearance for the second respondent
Written submissions
 were filed by Marler & Darvall, solicitors for the respondent, and they indicated that they did not wish to make oral submissions on behalf of the respondent.
Submitting appearances for the second and third respondents.
Submitting appearance for the second to sixth respondents.
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the first respondent
Submitting appearance for the fifth respondent
Submitting appearances for the third and fourth defendants
Amicus, Australian Consumers Association. Appeared and introduced themselves and then relied on written submissions only
Amicus, Australian Consumers Association. Appeared and introduced themselves and then relied on written submissions only
Amicus, Australian Consumers Association. Appeared and introduced themselves and then relied on written submissions only
Amicus, Australian Consumers Association. Appeared and introduced themselves and then relied on written submissions only
Amicus, Australian Consumers Association. Appeared and introduced themselves and then relied on written submissions only
Amicus, Australian Consumers Association. Appeared and introduced themselves and then relied on written submissions only
No appearance for the fifth defendant
No appearance for the second respondent
MR J.E. GRIFFITHS, SC is listed in the transcript as 'Mr' but referred to by the CJ as 'Dr'. The amicus intervention was approved but on the basis of written submissions only and therefore I am unable to determine who the counsel were.
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No hearing, hence no transcript and no details of counsel
No hearing, hence no transcript and no details of counsel
No hearing, hence no transcript and no details of counsel
No hearing, hence no transcript and no details of counsel
No hearing, hence no transcript and no details of counsel
No hearing, hence no transcript and no details of counsel
This is an unusual case in that the intervener plays the role of the 'contradictor' as there is no respondent
This is an unusual case in that the intervener plays the role of the 'contradictor' as there is no respondent
This is an unusual case in that the intervener plays the role of the 'contradictor' as there is no respondent
This is an unusual case in that the intervener plays the role of the 'contradictor' as there is no respondent
Between the hearings of 3 Aug 2004 & 9 Dec 2004 there was a change in counsel for the appellant with N Perram being replaced by A Robertson SC
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first defendant. Between the hearings of 5/6 October 2004 and 7 December 2004 some counsel changed. MJ Leeming for NSW was replaced by AM Mitchelmore. JC Cox for SA was replaced by A Rao. GJ Williams from the amicus team only appeared at the October hearings.
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first appellant. No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the third to fifth respondents
No appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
Submitting appearance for the second respondent
No hearing and transcript, therefore uncertain of the gender of two of the junior counsel
Between the hearing on 28 May 2003 and 3 December 2003 the Commonwealth added an extra junior counsel to their team (Ms LG De Ferrari).  Also, the other interveners only attended the December hearing
No appearance for the applicant
The amicus curiae team appeared and were introduced by their senior, the were given  "leave on the basis that you rely on your written submissions."
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
When introducing his team, DF Jackson said that he appeared with DR Gore QC but then said "Events have made it impossible for Mr

Gore to be

physically present and I apologise for the absence."
No appearance for the third and fourth respondents
No appearance for the first and second respondents
MR J. BASTEN, QC (appeared with MS R.W. BURGESS) for BMB, seeking leave to intervene in support of the appellant. (instructed by Legal Aid Commission of New South Wales). Leave was denied
MR J.McC. IRELAND, QC
 announced his intention to seek leave to appear in this matter on a limited basis (communicated to the Court by a notice of motion)
 on behalf of Mr Robert Edward Harkins. In the end his application for leave did not have to be dealt with.
No appearance for the second to fifth respondents
Interventions by Vic, NSW, SA, & WA are all in support of the plaintiffs
No appearance for the second respondent. WA & SA intervened in support of NSW
No appearance for the third respondent. WA & SA intervened in support of QLD
No appearance for the third respondent. WA & SA intervened in support of QLD
Purported appeal struck out as incompetent. No appearance for the appellant. The respondent did not participate
No appearance for the first respondent in his capacity as executor. No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the first respondent in his capacity as executor. No appearance for the second and third respondents
No hearing therefore no transcript or counsel
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the second respondent.
No appearance for the second respondents
No appearance for the first respondents. Also, C N Jessup QC is listed in the transcript as 'Mr' but the CJ refers to him as 'Dr'.
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second to twentieth respondents
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the third respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
MR WILLIAMS (obo People with Disabilities (NSW) Inc) said "We are not seeking leave to make oral submissions. We are seeking leave to be limited to the written submissions already filed with the Court."
No appearance for the respondent. The amici curiae do not appear to be acting on behalf of a specific party.  Maybe this is linked to the fact that there is no appearance by the respondent
No appearance for the respondent. The amici curiae do not appear to be acting on behalf of a specific party.  Maybe this is linked to the fact that there is no appearance by the respondent
Appeal struck out as incompetent. Appellant appeared in person and there was no respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first defendant
No appearance for the first respondent. MS D.E. PURCELL sought leave to appear as amicus curiae after quite long discussion, leave was denied
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the third respondent
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first defendant
No appearance for the first defendant
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second and third named first respondents
No appearance for the second to seventh named first respondents
No appearance for the second to seventh named first respondents. No appearance for the fifth to the fourteenth respondents
No appearance for the second, fifth, sixth, seventh and eighth named third

respondents. No appearance for the seventh and eighth respondents
No appearance for the first and second respondents
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
Sofronoff also advised the court that "Attending with us, your Honours, is my learned pupil, Dr Greinke"
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second and third-named second respondents
No appearance for the first respondents
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
With a quick google search I was unable to ascertain the gender of DR J.P. BERWICK
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second to seventh respondents. There was a slight change in cousel between the hearings on 7 April 2000 & 23 Nov 200. GT Pagone QC joined the appellants team at the later hearing and TA Gray only appeared for the respondents team at the first hearing.
This case is unusual in that the Commonwealth Attorney-General (himself) appeared and lead the intervener team
No appearance for the eighth respondent
No appearance for the eighth and ninth respondents
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the first respondent
No transcript for this case
No appearance for the respondent
There were changes to the two legal teams between the hearings on 25 March 1999 & 1 Feb 2000. RD Cavanagh appeared for the applicant in March but not Feb. SJ Gageler appeared for the respondent in March but was replaced by RC Refshauge in Feb.
No appearance for the fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh defendants
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
MDJ Bennett (QC), Cth SG, along with Ms KMF Ruddock sought leave to intervene and this was denied
No appearance for the first to seventh respondents
No appearance for the first to seventh respondents
JS Douglas advised the court that he has his pupil, Ms Dempsey, at the bar table with him
No appearance for the first, sixth, seventh and eighth respondents
No appearance for the second, third and fourth defendants
No appearance for the second and third respondents
No appearance for the sixth and eighth respondents
No appearance for the eighth respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
The Cmth SG sought leave to appear (as intervener or as amicus) and leave was denied
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first, second and third respondents. No appearance for the third named fourth respondent
No appearance for the second respondent. GJ Williams obo the Association of Superannuation Funds of Australia Limited sough leave to intervene as an amicus curiae and was denied.
There was a change in counsel between the hearings on 14/15 April 1999 and 3 May 1999. In the respondent's team AS Bell was replaced by SJ Gageler
There was a change in counsel between the hearings on 14/15 April 1999 and 3 May 1999. In the respondent's team AS Bell was replaced by SJ Gageler
There was a change in counsel between the hearings on 14/15 April 1999 and 3 May 1999. In the respondent's team AS Bell was replaced by SJ Gageler
No appearance for the second respondent
No transcript or other information about counsel
As well as the Commonweath SG appearing as intervener in this case, the actuall AG (Darryl Williams) also appeared
This was a hearing about costs determined on the basis of written submissions. There are no details of the counsel
No appearance by the first respondent
No appearance by the eighth and tenth respondents
No hearing or transcript hence no detail of counsel
No appearance by the first and second respondents. After quick google search was unable to ascertain gender of Dr GL Ebbeck
No appearance for the second defendant
No appearance by the first respondent
No appearance by the first respondent
No appearance by the second, third and fourth respondents
No appearance by the first respondent
No appearance by the first and third respondents
The CJ refers to Ms JA Scutt as 'Dr'
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the fourth respondent
Decision on papers no information available on counsel
No appearance for the second respondent
No appearance for the second respondent
MR G.G. MASTERMAN, QC: sought to interve with his learned friend, MR R.E. DUBLER, for David Lee Bitel in his capacity as Secretary-General of the Australian Section of the International Commission of Jurists. Leave was denied
No appearance for the first, third & fourth respondents
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the third respondent
MR G.M.G. McINTYRE: sought leave to appear for the Kimberley Land Council and this was not granted
M Byers' title is 'Sir'
First time I have seen a counsel given the title 'Miss'
M Byers' title is 'Sir'
M Byers' title is 'Sir'
No transcript and hence no detail of counsel
No appearance for the second respondent
At the hearing on 1 June, GR Waugh was added to the respondent's team
No appearance for the first respondent
No appearance for the first respondent