Read on Twitter
#DysonHeydon My letter to Saturday Paper 3 Sept 2015
Dyson Heydon says he does not have a computer and that his personal assistant prints out his emails for him to read.
Presumably an assistant also performs his legal research for him, since he would be unable
Dyson Heydon says he does not have a computer and that his personal assistant prints out his emails for him to read.
Presumably an assistant also performs his legal research for him, since he would be unable
to navigate the various online legal databases which
have been in existence for at least twenty years.
For a judge who sat on the recent case of Google v ACCC [2013] HCA 1, to now profess himself to be technologically illiterate, is tantamount to a
have been in existence for at least twenty years.
For a judge who sat on the recent case of Google v ACCC [2013] HCA 1, to now profess himself to be technologically illiterate, is tantamount to a
retrospective admission of professional negligence : a reminder of the finding against him and others, in NRMA Ltd & Ors v Morgan & Ors [1999] NSWSC 407, [1999] NSWSC 694, and [1999] NSWSC 768, in which
Heydon (then a barrister) and other defendants (solicitors), were fined a total of $32,068,910.00 for omitting to consider in their advice to the NRMA on its proposed demutualisation, the possible effects of the High Court's decision in
Gambotto v WCP Ltd [1995] HCA 12
Unsurprisingly, given that Heydon had been appointed as a Judge of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in February 2000, the finding of professional negligence against him
Unsurprisingly, given that Heydon had been appointed as a Judge of the NSW Supreme Court and Court of Appeal in February 2000, the finding of professional negligence against him
was overturned by the Court of Appeal in December of that year, [2000] NSWCA.
Although Heydon was not on the bench which overturned the finding against him, it is revealing of the more unsavoury aspects of the legal profession,
Although Heydon was not on the bench which overturned the finding against him, it is revealing of the more unsavoury aspects of the legal profession,
that a barrister who was in effect, rewarded, in spite of bad workmanship, by promotion to the judiciary, should be considered qualified to investigate the union movement.
nb the above thread was a letter I SENT to the Saturday Paper in Sept 2015, but it was not published.
ps The Judges I worked for who set the standards by which I judge all Judges, were: Michael Kirby, Elizabeth Evatt, Peter Nygh, Peter Moss and Margaret Renaud.
And I remain extremely grateful to Commissioner Peter Newall of the NSW Industrial Relations Commission - who understood.
