The Legal Year commenced with the traditional ceremonies in each State and Territory. For the national Bar, the Legal Year commenced on 3 February 2025 in the High Court of Australia with the Ceremonial Sitting on the Occasion of the Announcement of the Appointment of Senior Counsel and King’s Counsel. In front of family and colleagues, 69 freshly minted Senior Counsel and King’s Counsel appeared to take their bow before the Full Court of the High Court. In his congratulatory remarks to the new Silks, Chief Justice Gageler remarked on the necessary qualities to be appointed senior counsel, namely character and competence. In respect of character, Gageler CJ identified ‘honesty, integrity, independence, diligence, courtesy and courage’.
It is pertinent, at the beginning of the legal year, to remind ourselves that these essential qualities of character are expected of all counsel - by the courts, our professional peers, our clients and the wider community.
Following the Ceremonial Sitting, the new Silks and their families were treated to a wonderful afternoon tea in the foyer of the High Court, before enjoying a black-tie dinner in the National Gallery of Australia, where Steward J generously toasted the new Silks and Stewart Webster KC responded in kind with a toast to the judiciary. A good time was had by all.
VALE
The Hon. Austin Asche AC KC
It is with deep regret that I acknowledge, on behalf of the national Bar, the death of the Hon. Austin Asche AC KC who died on 14 December 2024, at the age of 99 years.
Although born in Melbourne, Asche spent his formative years initially in Rabaul, Papua New Guinea and then in Darwin, where his father, Eric, held the position of Crown Law Officer. Asche returned to Melbourne to complete his secondary education at Melbourne Grammar School.
He joined the Royal Australian Air Force in 1944 and served until 1946.
Asche was educated at the University of Melbourne, attaining a Bachelor of Arts and a Masters of Laws. He was admitted to practice on 1 February 1950. Asche subsequently relocated to Brisbane where he was admitted and practiced at the Queensland Bar, until returning to Melbourne in 1954 where he signed the Victorian Bar Roll. Asche was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1972.
In 1976 Asche was the first Victorian appointed as a Justice of the newly formed Family Court of Australia. In 1986 he was appointed Justice of the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory and later served as Chief Justice.
Asche retired from the Bench in 1993 and was appointed Administrator of the Northern Territory, a position he held until 1997.
Amongst his many distinguished positions of public service, Asche served as Chairman of the Northern Territory Parole Board; Chairman of the Northern Territory Law Reform Commission; Vice-President and then President of the Royal Melbourne Institute of Technology; Chancellor of Deakin University and Chancellor of the Northern Territory University. He was also an Honorary Colonel in the North West Mobile Force.
Asche was made a Fellow of the Australian College of Education; a Knight of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, and a Companion of the Order of Australia. He received the Centenary medal in 2003. In 2007 Asche became a Freeman of the City of Darwin.
Asche was an exemplar of public service. He had a profound impact on the legal profession and education in Australia, and in particular in the Northern Territory.
A memorial sitting to mark the passing of the Honourable Austin Asche AC KC will be held at the Darwin Supreme Court at 3 pm on Friday, 28 March 2025.
On behalf of the Australian Bar Association, I offer my sincere condolences to his family and to his friends and colleagues.
The Hon. Roger Vincent Gyles AO KC
It is with deep regret that I acknowledge on behalf of the national Bar, the death of the Hon. Roger Vincent Gyles AO KC, a former President of the Australian Bar Association, on 2 March 2025.
Gyles was educated at Newington College. He attended the University of Sydney, graduating in 1961 with First Class Honours in Law. His practice as a solicitor was relatively short, being called to the NSW Bar in 1964. Gyles was appointed Queen’s Counsel in 1975. Gyles had a busy and successful practice, appearing in the Privy Council, the High Court of Australia, in all States and Territories of Australian and in the Courts of Singapore, Papua New Guinea, Fiji and the Solomon Islands. He appeared as counsel in many official inquiries, including as Commonwealth Special Prosecutor into ‘bottom of the harbour’ tax frauds. Between 1990-1992 he was appointed as Royal Commissioner into Productivity in the Building Industry, New South Wales.
In 1975, Gyles was appointed as Acting Master in Equity of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. He was subsequently appointed as an Acting judge of the Supreme Court of New South Wales in 1989 prior to appointments as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia in 1999 until 2008. Between 2003-2008 he served as Deputy President of the Australian Competition Tribunal, and between 2005-2008 as the Presidential member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. He was an additional Judge of the Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory between 2001-2008. In 2008, Gyles also served as an Acting Judge of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales.
Gyles had an extensive practice in Arbitration -as counsel and as arbitrator/referee, covering the field from building/engineering matters, commercial disputes, energy pricing, and sport – both nationally and internationally. In 2018 he was appointed by the ABA to report on opportunities for barristers in International Arbitration.
In his post judicial life, Gyles chaired many inquiries and reviews. He had a substantial mediation practice and was a much sought after mediator.
Gyles served as President of the New South Wales Association between December 1985 and November 1987, and as President of the Australian Bar Association in 1987.
In 2000, Gyles was awarded an Officer in the Order of Australia for service to the legal profession and the judiciary, particularly as a Royal Commissioner and Special Prosecutor, and to the community.
Gyles AO KC was a tireless servant of the administration of justice and a significant figure in the legal profession. On behalf of the Australian Bar Association, I extend my sincere condolences to his family, friends and colleagues.
Appointments to the Federal Court of Australia.
Throughout February, a number of Ceremonial Sittings were held to welcome the new justices of the Federal Court. I was unfortunately out of the jurisdiction and unable to attend the welcome ceremonies. I thank the respective State Bar presidents who represented the ABA on my behalf.
On 7 March 2025, Mr Graeme Hill SC was appointed a judge of the Federal Court. Originally admitted in the Australian Capital Territory, where he practiced for more than 10 years, Hill signed the Victorian Bar Roll in 2007 and was appointed Senior Counsel in 2021. His appointment as a judge of the Federal Court is effective from 2 April 2025.
Appointments of Chief Justices to Tasmania and Victoria
The beginning of the legal year saw the appointment of new Chief Justices to Tasmania and Victoria.
On 20 January 2025, Chris Shanahan CJ was appointed as Chief Justice of Tasmania.
On 3 February 2025, Richard Niall CJ was appointed as Chief Justice of Victoria.
Appointments to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia
On 7 March 2025 the Commonwealth Attorney-General the Hon. Mark Dreyfus KC MP announced a number of appointments to the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.
On behalf of the national Bar, I congratulate barristers Mr Peter Fary SC and Mr Mark Cleary on their respective appointments as a judge of the Federal Circuit Court and Family Court of Australia.
Change to ABA Council
On 6 February 2025, Dr Rachael Gray KC, former President of the South Australian Bar was appointed as a judge of the Supreme Court of South Australia. I congratulate Rachael and thank her for her service on the ABA Council.
Jane Abbey KC has been elected President of the South Australian Bar, and consequently has joined the Australian Bar Association Council. I extend a warm welcome to Jane and look forward to working with her in 2025.
ABA Conference – CROSSROADS
The ABA Conference, CROSSROADS, will be held in Sydney on Friday, 29 August. The conference committee is working hard and is well advanced in securing excellent speakers over a broad range of topics and practice areas. CROSSROADS will be a conference not to be missed. Booking details will be available soon.
I have received an overwhelmingly positive response to the idea of the ABA organising an international conference. Preliminary investigations are underway. Further details will be forthcoming in due course. It is anticipated that the conference would be held mid-2026.
It has been another busy start to the year. We have, or will shortly be, formally welcoming our eight new judges to the Court: Justice Samuel Vandongen (Perth); Justice Cameron Moore (Sydney); Justice Nicholas Owens (Sydney); Justice James Stellios (Sydney); Justice Houda Younan (Sydney); Justice Elizabeth Bennett (Melbourne); Justice Erin Longbottom (Brisbane) and Justice Amelia Wheatley (Brisbane). On behalf of the judges, registrars and staff of the Federal Court, I congratulate our newest judges on their appointments, and I am confident that they will serve the Australian community with distinction.
I am about to commence my annual visits to each registry of the Court, starting in Darwin on 4 March and finishing in Adelaide in June. During these registry visits, in addition to meeting with each judge individually, I will meet with members of staff, including separate meetings with the Court’s registrars, and with Chambers staff. I will also meet with representatives of the Law Society and independent Bar in each location, and with representatives of the Law Council and Australian Bar Association. The discussions with the profession during the registry visits are always productive. We discuss issues affecting the profession locally and the way they and their clients engage with the Federal Court, as well as national issues. I am always grateful for the enthusiasm of the profession and their willingness to engage with the Court. This year I am also inviting law students to each of the Court’s registries to hear from me, alongside experienced associates of the Court, about the Court’s jurisdiction, workload and the opportunities to work within the Court in its registries and with its judges.
On Friday 31 January, the Court was pleased to host the 2025 Native Title Forum in Brisbane and streamed around the country. The Forum included sessions conducted by eminent experts in the field of Native Title Law including former Justice of the Federal Court, the Hon John Mansfield AM KC, and leading anthropologists Dr David Martin and Ms Wendy Asche. My thanks to Justice Rangiah and Nicola Colbran, the Court’s National Native Title Registrar, for organising this event.
The Forum was opened by Justice Rangiah and involved three sessions. The first session was an address by the Hon John Mansfield which focused on ‘Indigenous land rights and native title: past, present and future’. Following this was a panel discussion on ‘Challenges, innovations and solutions in the native title system’. The panel members included National Judicial Registrar Nicola Colbran, Rachel Kerrigan from the National Indigenous Australians Agency, Susan Walsh, Principal Legal Officer of the Gur A Baradharaw Kod Torres Strait Sea and Land Council, Barrister Carla Klease and Richard Abraham of Minter Ellison.
The afternoon sessions were introduced by Justice Collier and were focused on ‘Conflicts between lawyers and anthropologists in native title law’, presented by Dr David Martin from Anthropos Consulting Services and ‘The mistakes lawyers make in briefing expert witnesses’ presented by Ms Wendy Asche, Anthropology Manager of the Northern Land Council and barrister Joshua Creamer.
A recording of the forum is available on the Court’s YouTube channel.
I would like to acknowledge the following judge and former judges who were recipients of 2025 Australia Day Honours:
On behalf of all the Judges, Registrars and staff of the Federal Court, I congratulate their Honours on their well-deserved achievements.
On 31 January 2025, the Court published a new general practice note regarding the 3 region duty trial: Duty (Urgent) Applications Interim Practice Note for 3 Region Trial (GPN-DUTY). The trial will run for the 2025 and 2026 Court terms.
Concurrently, the Court also issued an accompanying notice to the profession regarding the commencement of three region trial for duty (urgent) applications. The trial, which commenced on 3 February 2025, is a new approach to listing and determining duty (urgent) applications in all registries of the Court. The objective of the trial is to seek to better manage the listing and determination of duty work in the context of the Court’s National Court Framework which uses the individual docket structure. The model being trialled aims to achieve a more even distribution of the duty (urgent) work across all judges in all registries while ensuring sufficient resources are available to determine genuinely urgent applications quickly and by the most efficient means appropriate in the circumstances of the application.
The Court anticipates a consultation process with representatives of the profession after the end of the 2025 Court term and any modifications that come out of consultation will be trialled in the 2026 sitting period. The Court is undertaking ongoing monitoring of the operation of the new arrangements during the trial. The Court welcomes any constructive feedback from the profession which can be provided to DutyTrial@fedcourt.gov.au. I have also asked the professional associations to collate feedback.
As a result of the introduction of the GPN-DUTY Practice Note, a range of consequential amendments were made to existing Practice Notes in various National Practice Areas which address the making of urgent applications:
In February 2025, I travelled to New Zealand to attend the Pacific Judicial Conference, the Pacific Chief Justices’ Leadership Forum and the inaugural Regional Coordination Meeting.
The Pacific Judicial Conference included representatives from 15 Pacific Island nations, as well as Singapore, Malaysia, Brunei Darussalam, the Philippines, Australia, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. This year’s conference focused on strengthening the institution of the judiciary, technology, climate change and the future shape of courts. I presented a session jointly with Justice Joe Williams of the New Zealand Supreme Court on Legal Pluralism; and participated on a Panel together with Chief Justice Helen Winkelmann of the New Zealand Supreme Court, and Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika of the Papua New Guinea Supreme Court, in a session on Foreign Judges in the Pacific.
The Pacific Chief Justices’ Leadership Forum is an annual gathering of 15 Pacific Island nations, and New Zealand and Australia to discuss priority areas; enable leadership dialogue and networking on judicial development; and provide oversight and direction on programs of support to the region.
Justice Burley and I, together with our Director of International Programs, Ms Helen Burrows, presented at the Forum and provided an overview of the Federal Court’s extensive work across the region, an update on key results and resources developed under the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade funded Pacific Judicial Integrity Program (PJIP) and sought the region’s feedback on future areas of need. I also presented with Chief Justice Winkelmann about the objectives of the FCA and the NZ Courts to work collaboratively and cooperatively with each other in our engagement with our Pacific colleagues.
There was also an inaugural Regional Coordination Meeting. This involved representatives from the New Zealand Judiciary, the Federal Court of Australia, the New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade-funded Pacific Justice Sector Programme Judicial Executive Committee, the United States Ninth Circuit’s Pacific Islands Committee, Papua New Guinea Centre for Judicial Excellence, the United Kingdom Judicial College, New Zealand Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. The meeting shared current programs of support to the judiciaries of the Pacific and identified opportunities for better coordination to prevent potential duplication, gaps and activity clashes. Several recommendations were agreed, including the regional coordination meeting being held annually.
On 17 February 2025, I signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with each of the Supreme and National Courts of Papua New Guinea and the High Court of the Solomon Islands. These MOUs will further strengthen the relationship between the Federal Court and the Pacific region through court-to-court arrangements. Chief Justice Sir Gibbs Salika from the Supreme and National Court of Papua New Guinea, and Chief Justice Sir Albert Palmer from the High Court of the Solomon Islands, were both able to attend the MOU signings in person at the Melbourne Registry.
The Federal Court has collaborated with Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands on judicial training and support programs since 2001 and 2004 respectively.
The areas the Courts will collaborate on under the new MOUs align with the priorities articulated by both Chief Justices and aim to promote the quality and efficiency of justice according to the rule of law. Activities under the MOUs will be delivered using a blend of judicial and staff fellowships to the Federal Court and visits to our partner countries, maximising the reach of the Court’s expertise among both judiciaries. For more information, see the Court’s media release or read the Nine News coverage of the event. The Federal Court is grateful for the continuing assistance of DFAT in its international programs work.
On Saturday 22 February 2025, I had the honour of giving the keynote address – the inaugural Honourable Malcolm Blue Memorial Address – at the South Australian Bar Association’s annual conference. In a speech titled ‘Livestreaming: Peaks and Pitfalls’, I provided background on the Court’s approach to livestreaming, and information about current practice. The speech then identifies a range of issues that the Court, with the profession, should consider as we gain more experience of livestreaming in court proceedings. I would like to see these matters remain a topic of discussion throughout 2025, as the Federal Court considers how best to ensure that court proceedings are appropriately accessible to all in the community. My full speech is published on the Court’s website.
Although it is only March, the legal year is in full swing, and I look forward to a busy but productive year ahead.
These Amendment Rules of Court, signed by the Justices of the High Court of Australia on 28 February 2025 are made by the Justices under the Judiciary Act 1903, the Commonwealth Electoral Act 1918 and the High Court of Australia Act 1979.
Amendments to Chapter 2 – Proceedings in the original jurisdiction of the Court
The amendments are aimed at clarifying the circumstances in which applications made in the Court’s original jurisdiction may be determined on the papers. The amendments will enhance the efficiency of the process for the consideration and determination of applications and spare the parties the cost of preparing for and attending a hearing where the Court or a Justice considers that a hearing is not otherwise required.
Part 25 – Mandamus, prohibition, certiorari, habeas corpus and quo warranto
Rule 25.09.1 presently provides that the Court or a Justice may dismiss an application for a constitutional or other writ, without listing the application for hearing, on the ground that the application does not disclose an arguable basis for the relief sought or is an abuse of the process of the Court. The rule does not provide for the determination of an application for a constitutional or other writ on the papers where the application is dismissed on a different basis to that identified. Similarly, the rule does not contemplate the granting of an application without a hearing. Rule 25.09 is amended to ensure that the Court or a Justice may determine an application, without listing it for hearing, regardless of the outcome of the application or, if an application is to be dismissed, the grounds on which an application is dismissed.
Part 26 – Applications for removal under section 40 of the Judiciary Act 1903
Applications for removal of proceedings from another court are routinely determined by a Full Court of two or more Justices on the papers pursuant to rule 26.07. Where an application is made by an Attorney‑General seeking to remove a cause arising under the Constitution or involving its interpretation the application is generally considered by a single Justice. It is more efficient for this type of application to be considered by a single Justice rather than referring the application to a Full Court because, provided there is a relevant constitutional cause pending in another court, there is no discretion to refuse an application by an Attorney-General, with an order for removal to be made “as of course” (see section 40(1) of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth)). In these cases it may also be preferable for the Justice to make orders on the papers without requiring the legal representatives of the Attorney-General and the substantive parties to attend a hearing. Rules 26.07.1 and 26.07.1A do not include provision for the determination of applications for removal on the papers by a single Justice. Rules 26.07.1 and 26.07.1A are amended to provide that a single Justice may determine an application for removal, and publish reasons for the decision, without listing it for hearing.
Amendments to Schedule 2 – Fees for work done and services performed
Schedule 2 of the High Court Rules 2004 specifies the amount which solicitors, who are entitled to practise in the High Court, may charge and be allowed on taxation of costs by the Taxing Officer of the Court in respect of proceedings in the Court. The amounts in the Schedule were last varied by the High Court Amendment (Fees) Rules 2023 (F2023L01522) made on 13 November 2023 and apply to work done and services performed by solicitors after 1 January 2024.
The Joint Costs Advisory Committee (JCAC) was established in 2007 to review annually and recommend variations in the quantum of costs contained in the Rules made by the High Court of Australia, the Federal Court of Australia, the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) and the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2). It comprises representatives of those courts. In conducting its reviews, the JCAC applies a formula which has regard to movements in wages and salaries and other costs of solicitors’ practices.
In its report the JCAC recommended an increase of 4.0% to the solicitors’ costs provided for in the Rules of each Court. The High Court has accepted the recommendation of the Committee. The increases to the solicitors’ costs provided in Schedule 2 will take effect on 1 March 2025 and will apply in respect of all work done and services performed by solicitors on or after 1 March 2025.
Consultation
The amendments to Part 25 and Part 26 will have no impact on the parties or their legal representatives other than to avoid the preparatory work and associated costs involved in attending unnecessary hearings. In these circumstances no consultation in relation to the amendments to Chapter 2 was necessary.
When the JCAC conducted its annual review of costs in 2024, the Committee wrote to the Commonwealth Attorney-General’s Department, the Law Council of Australia, the National Association of Community Legal Centres and National Legal Aid inviting them, and their respective constituent bodies or State and Territory counterparts, to make submissions to the review. A notice of the review was also placed on the website of each court. The JCAC received submissions from the Law Council of Australia and from National Legal Aid. Following its review, the JCAC published its Seventeenth Report on Legal Practitioners’ Costs in September 2024. Issues raised in submissions received by the Committee were addressed in the report.
Statement of compatibility
Section 8 of the Legislation Act 2003 provides that Rules of Court made for the High Court of Australia are not legislative instruments for the purposes of that Act. The Human Rights (Parliamentary Scrutiny) Act 2011 does not apply to any such Rules of Court and no statement of compatibility for the purposes of that latter Act is included in the Explanatory Statement.
Click here to read the full Amendment Rules of Court.
The Australian Academy of Law is pleased to announce the offering of its Annual Essay Prize for 2025.
The Prize is open to anyone, wherever resident, who is studying or has studied legal subjects at a tertiary level, or who is working or has worked in a law-based occupation. There is no limit by reference to the age or seniority or experience of, or position held by, a person who may submit an entry. Accordingly, judicial officers, legal practitioners, legal academics and law students are all eligible to submit an essay.
The amount of the Prize is $10,000.
The essay topic for the Prize in 2025 is as follows:
Where has Bird v DP [2024] HCA 41 (‘Bird’) left the law of vicarious liability in Australia? How does it differ from the law in other common law jurisdictions? Should there be a legislative response to Bird and, if so, what should be its scope?
The length of the essay to be submitted is a maximum of 8,000 words (excluding the abstract).
The deadline for the submission of an essay is 31 August 2025 and this time limit is strictly observed, as the Rules Governing the Annual Essay Prize make clear.
The Essay Prize Rules can be accessed here.
Access to the essay submission cover page is here.
Duty (urgent) work is a significant and important part of the Federal Court of Australia’s work. On 3 February 2025, the Court will commence a trial of a new approach to listing and determining duty (urgent) applications in all registries of the Court. The object of the trial is to seek to better manage the listing and determination of duty work in the context of the Court’s National Court Framework which uses the individual docket structure. The model being trialled aims to achieve a more even distribution of the duty (urgent) work across all judges in all registries while ensuring sufficient resources are available to determine genuinely urgent applications quickly and by the most efficient means appropriate in the circumstances of the particular application. This notice explains how the trial model will operate.
On 31 January 2025, the Court published a new general practice note, which will apply during the trial period: Duty (Urgent) Applications Interim Practice Note for 3 Region Trial (GPN-DUTY). The trial will run for the 2025 and 2026 Court terms.
The GPN-DUTY practice note formalises some aspects of the Court’s existing practice in relation to duty applications and also introduces a new requirement in the form of a certificate of urgency that must be provided in support of a duty application. The form of the certificate of urgency is set out in Annexure A to the GPN-DUTY practice note. An applicant or their legal representative must certify, amongst other things, that they have read and thoroughly familiarised themselves with the GPN-DUTY practice note. The certificate of urgency provided by the applicant will be considered by the relevant Duty Judge to determine whether a duty application is attended by sufficient urgency to justify the application (or part of the application) being determined by a Duty Judge on an urgent basis outside the usual Docket and/or Specialty List Arrangements.
During the trial period, the Court will monitor the new arrangements with a view to assessing whether the trial should be extended and/or modified. During the trial period, the Court welcomes feedback in relation to the trial. Practitioners may provide constructive feedback by emailing DutyTrial@fedcourt.gov.au. The Chief Justice will be communicating with professional associations about whether they are also able to provide collated feedback, and she will discuss this trial during her meetings with the profession at her 2025 FCA Registry visits.
The Court anticipates a consultation process with representatives of the profession after the end of the 2025 Court term. Any modifications to the arrangements that come out of this consultation will be trialled in the 2026 sitting period.
A decision as to whether to implement the new arrangements on a more permanent basis will be made following consultation with the profession at the end of 2026, when the trial is completed.
Three Duty Regions
During the trial, duty applications will be managed by reference to three duty regions. Each region is comprised of a number of registries and each region will operate according to its own independent duty roster:
Due to the volume of duty applications filed in Region 1 and Region 2, each of these regions will operate two streams of duty: General Duty and Commercial and Corporations Duty. The two streams of duty will be run concurrently with at least one Duty Judge rostered on each stream for each day of the Court term. The demarcation between the types of applications that fall within each of these two streams is addressed in the GPN-DUTY practice note. If an applicant is in doubt as to whether an application is a General Duty Application or a Commercial and Corporations Duty Application, the application should first be brought to the attention of the General Duty Judge.
Due to the lesser volume of duty matters in Region 3, this region will operate one combined Duty Roster with at least one Duty Judge rostered on for each day of the Court term.
First point of contact for urgent applications
The Daily Court Lists will contain the names and contact details of the Duty Judge(s) rostered in the relevant region.
The Court will continue to operate its existing arrangements in relation to the first point of contact for urgent duty applications. This means that:
Information to be provided to the Court
The GPN-DUTY practice note sets out the information an applicant (or their legal representative) must provide to the Court at the time of their initial contact with the Court. This includes the following information:
Requirement to submit a Certificate of Urgency
An applicant seeking a hearing before a Duty Judge must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Duty Judge that the application is genuinely urgent and must submit a ‘Certificate of Urgency’ to the Duty Judge’s chambers at the time of making their application. The form of the Certificate is in Annexure A to the GPN-DUTY practice note.
Filing urgent applications
The GPN-DUTY practice note provides guidance on how urgent applications are to be filed (ideally via eLodgment, depending on the urgency of the matter).
Amendments to other existing Practice Notes
As a result of the introduction of the GPN-DUTY practice note, a range of consequential amendments will need to be made to existing Practice Notes in various National Practice Areas which address the making of urgent applications.
Consultation and feedback
The Court will monitor the operation of the new arrangements during the trial with a view to assessing whether it is meeting the objectives outlined above. As mentioned, the Court welcomes any constructive feedback from the profession during the operation of the trial, including suggestions for improvement.
Further updates on the trial will be published by the Court as appropriate.
D S Mortimer
Chief Justice
Date: 31 January 2025
At the request of the Court, the ABA is helping collate any constructive feedback and forwarding it onto the court at set intervals. If you have feedback, please send it to ceo@austbar.asn.au.
