Ann: Suspension Update, page-30

I know you are keen to try and catch me out Jimmy. However, your haste to catch me out is your undoing - I think.

What you have written (seemingly in haste) shows the same lack of understanding as some others around here..

"Then why did you tell everyone on the 1st of November that it would most likely be sorted in chambers that afternoon seeing as it was just a technicality? Why did you say that when you now argue that anyone knows that the court sets dates, often weeks out?"

On 1 November I wrote that "in all likelihood" (I thought I explained this to you last night - maybe it was someone else) they would seek an urgent hearing (chambers). A lawyer can make an application for a chambers hearing which is normally of an urgent nature and the matter is not overly complicated.

URGENT MATTERS - COMMERCIAL & CORPORATIONS DUTY JUDGE: Justice Siopis
Practitioners - Contact Associate on 08 9268 7180
Wow - what a revelation - look at the name of the Judge! Looks like he scored the urgent applications duty.

Federal Court Interim Practice Notes
National Court Framework and case management

Urgent Applications
4.3 The Court will actively assist parties to bring on urgent applications which may require an urgent listing at the earliest appropriate time. The Court will facilitate the listing of a hearing before a Judge in the NPA relevant to the character of the application, or before a Duty Judge. In each Registry, for the Commercial and Corporations NPA, there will be a designated Duty Judge to whom urgent applications in that NPA will be referred. Appropriate arrangements will be put in place for other NPAs.

If, 18 November 2016 was the earliest opportunity then that was the earliest opportunity. There are times when the matter can be heard the same day. Lawyers (mostly junior lawyers) are often rushing into the court requesting an urgent hearing in chambers. That is a very regular event. Read the above.

Again, what I wrote was at a time when there was scant information available and you now seek to use hindsight to criticise my argument. That's a tad hollow - I think!

"So now I'm confused because you argue on one hand that they needed further evidence and that was no big deal but when it suits your argument, you then say that there is nowhere that indicates there was insufficient evidence. You really are playing both sides of the fence here."

Oh c'mon please ... are you asking me to take this paragraph seriously? As for you being in a state of confusion - well ... you have some company!

Enough from me tonight. Gawd - the lengths one has to go to to put clarity around a simple issue!