re: litigation, page-3

re: litigation I have just read the conclusion: Point 52 and 53

Conclusion

52. Applying this test, I concluded that the Application should be dismissed. In coming to this conclusion I have had principal regard to the facts that:

· the Applicants have not satisfied me to the requisite degree that they are unable to secure appropriate representation;

· the Applicants have not satisfied me that if they cannot brief counsel they will be denied access to the court as it is understood on the authorities, particularly in the light of their knowledge and experience and their involvement with other litigation arising out of these events giving rise to this action;

· the Applicants have known since late 2007 that the trial was likely to proceed on 10 June 2008 and known since 14 March 2008 that this was the trial date; and

· the Applicants have not satisfied me that, in the circumstances where all but one of the relevant affidavits have been filed for some time, most of them years ago, (and that remaining one is that of the fifth defendant) they will not be ready.

I have also had regard to the facts that:

· the twenty-seventh defendant will suffer significant prejudice if the application is granted;

· the Commonwealth will suffer prejudice if the application is granted, though this is not serious prejudice;

· there have been four prior hearing dates set; and

· the Applicants have not satisfied me that they have realistic prospects of obtaining funds to brief counsel for a hearing were the proceedings adjourned.

Although of lesser significance, I have also had regard to the facts that

· the Applicants have not satisfied me that they bear no relevant responsibility for the position in which they presently find themselves;

· the Applicants failed to apply to vacate the hearing date in accordance with the Order I made on 14 March 2008; and

· the granting of the application at this late stage is likely to leave much of the 3 weeks currently set aside for the trial unable to be used to list other cases in the court which will also be affected by the re-allocation of a trial date for this trial.

53. Because of my principal reliance on the gaps in the material adduced on behalf of the Applicants, I made it clear when dismissing the application that the Applicants were at liberty to make a further application if they could gather and adduce the relevant evidence to address these matters. It is, of course, entirely a matter for the Applicants whether they choose to do so.