Road and Traffic Authority v Cremona

HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIAKIRBY JROADS AND TRAFFIC AUTHORITY   APPLICANTANDMINNA MAARIT CREMONA  RESPONDENTRoads and Traffic Authority v Cremona[2002] HCA 3819 August 2002S6/2002ORDER1.   The affidavits of Messrs Rossetto and Power and paragraphs 16 to 20 of the affidavit of Mr Rodney Buckley rejected.2.   The applicant to pay half of the respondent's costs of the application unless special leave to appeal is refused in which case the applicant must pay the respondent's costs.3.   Certify for the attendance of counsel.Representation:A Porthouse for the applicant (instructed by Crown Solicitor for the State of New South Wales)B M Toomey QC with M A Kumar for the respondent (instructed by Riley Gray-Spencer)Notice:  This copy of the Court's Reasons for Judgment is subject to formal revision prior to publication in the Commonwealth Law Reports.CATCHWORDSRoads and Traffic Authority v CremonaHigh Court – Practice – Special leave to appeal – Evidence of suggested importance of the issue raised by the application for special leave – Requirement that evidence be in affidavit form – Limited use of evidence – Unavailability of new evidence in the appellate jurisdiction of the High Court.Practice and procedure – High Court – Application for special leave to appeal – Evidence of suggested significance of decision the subject of the application – Admissibility of evidence – Requirement that evidence be in affidavit form.KIRBY J.   The application before the Court relates to three affidavits that have been filed by the Roads and Traffic Authority ("the applicant").  The affidavits have been filed in support of an application by the...