DOCSLIB.ORG

Annual Report 2005–2006 Chapter 1 Overview of the Federal Court of Australia

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA Annual Report 2005–2006 © Commonwealth of Australia 2006 ISSN 1035-5863 This work is copyright. Apart from any use as permitted by the Copyright Act 1968, no part may be reproduced by any process without prior written permission from the Commonwealth available from AusInfo. Requests and inquiries concerning reproduction and rights should be directed to the Manager, Legislative Services, AusInfo, GPO Box 1920, Canberra ACT 2601. The report was printed by National Capital Printing, 22 Pirie Street, Fyshwick ACT. FEDERAL COURT REGISTRIES Principal Registry Level 17 Law Courts Building Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 9230 8542 Fax: (02) 9223 7706 Email: [email protected] http://www.fedcourt.gov.au Hours: 8.30am-5.30pm Australian Capital Territory District Registry New South Wales District Registry Nigel Bowen Commonwealth Law Court Building Level 16 Law Courts Building Childers Street Queens Square Canberra City ACT 2601 Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 6267 0566 Fax:(02) 6267 0625 Phone: (02) 9230 8567 Fax: (02) 9230 8535 TTY: (02) 6267 0537 TTY: (02) 9230 8270 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counter Hours: 10.00am-1.00pm; 2.00pm-4.00pm Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm Northern Territory District Registry Queensland District Registry Level 3 Supreme Court Building Level 6 Harry Gibbs Commonwealth Law Court State Square Building Darwin NT 0800 119 North Quay Phone: (08) 8941 2333 Fax: (08) 8941 4941 Brisbane QLD 4000 TTY: (08) 8982 0838 Phone: (07) 3248 1100 Fax: (07) 3248 1260 Email: [email protected] TTY: (07) 3248 1272 Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.00pm Email: [email protected] Contact Hours: 8.30am-4.30pm Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm South Australia District Registry Tasmania District Registry Level 5 Roma Mitchell Commonwealth Law Court Edward Braddon Commonwealth Law Court Building Building 39-41 Davey St 3 Angas Street Hobart TAS 7000 Adelaide SA 5000 Phone: (03) 6232 1715 Fax: (03) 6232 1701 Phone: (08) 8219 1000 Fax: (08) 8219 1001 TTY: (03) 6232 1865 TTY: (08) 8219 1011 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.30pm Counter Hours: 9.00am-4.30pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.00pm Victoria District Registry Western Australia District Registry Level 7 Owen Dixon Commonwealth Law Court Level 6 Peter Durack Commonwealth Law Court Building Building 305 William Street 1 Victoria Avenue Melbourne VIC 3000 Perth WA 6000 Phone: (03) 8600 3333 Fax: (03) 8600 3281 Phone: (08) 9268 7100 Fax: (08) 9221 3261 TTY: (03) 9670 0320 TTY: (08) 9325 7053 Email: [email protected] Email: [email protected] Counter Hours: 9am-4.30pm Counter Hours: 8.30am-4.00pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.15pm Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.15pm Contact officer for Annual Report Elizabeth Connolly Principal Registry Level 18 Law Courts Building Queens Square Sydney NSW 2000 Phone: (02) 9230 8720 Fax: (02) 9223 1906 Contact Hours: 8.30am-5.30pm An electronic version of the report is available at http://www.fedcourt.gov.au iv Contents Of Annual Report 2005–2006 Chapter 1 Overview Of The Federal Court Of Australia ......................................1 1.1 Establishment ...............................................................................................3 1.2 Functions And Powers.................................................................................3 1.3 Objectives......................................................................................................3 1.4 The Court’s Outcome And Output Structure...........................................3 1.5 The Court......................................................................................................3 Judges ...........................................................................................................3 Appointments And Retirements.....................................................................8 1.6 Registries.....................................................................................................10 Registrar.......................................................................................................10 Principal And District Registries .................................................................10 Officers Of The Court..................................................................................11 Staff Of The Court .......................................................................................11 Chapter 2 The Year In Review................................................................................13 2.1 Introduction................................................................................................15 2.2 Significant Issues And Developments.......................................................15 Ecourt Services ............................................................................................15 Legislative Changes.....................................................................................18 Harmonised Bankruptcy Rules ....................................................................18 2.3 The Court’s Performance..........................................................................18 Workload .....................................................................................................18 Migration Matters ........................................................................................19 Performance Against Time Standards .........................................................20 Chapter 3 The Work Of The Court In 2005–06.....................................................23 3.1 Introduction................................................................................................25 3.2 Management Of Cases And Deciding Disputes.......................................25 Introduction..................................................................................................25 The Court’s Jurisdiction...............................................................................25 Changes To The Court’s Jurisdiction In 2005–06 .......................................27 Amendments To The Federal Court Of Australia Act.................................27 Amendments To The Federal Court Of Australia Regulations ...................28 Federal Court Rules And Practice Notes .....................................................28 Workload Of The Federal Court And Federal Magistrates Court ...............30 Decisions Of Interest....................................................................................32 The Workload Of The Court In Its Original Jurisdiction ............................32 The Court’s Appellate Jurisdiction ..............................................................34 The Appellate Workload..............................................................................35 The Court’s Migration Jurisdiction..............................................................36 The Court’s Native Title Jurisdiction ..........................................................38 Assisted Dispute Resolution ........................................................................42 Management Of Cases And Deciding Disputes By Tribunals.....................44 v 3.3 Improving Access To The Court And Contributing To The Australian Legal System...............................................................................................44 Introduction..................................................................................................44 Practice And Procedure Reforms.................................................................45 Assistance For Self Represented Litigants ..................................................45 Remission Or Waiver Of Court And Registry Fees.....................................46 Remote Hearings..........................................................................................47 Public Information .......................................................................................47 Community Relations ..................................................................................48 Complaints About The Court’s Processes ...................................................50 Involvement In Legal Education Programs And Legal Reform Activities..50 3.4 Work With International Jurisdictions ...................................................50 Introduction..................................................................................................50 Indonesia......................................................................................................50 Asia Pacific Judicial Reform Forum (Apjrf) ...............................................52 Interim Regional Judicial Development Program........................................53 Pacific Governance Support Program..........................................................54 Third Asia Pacific Mediation Forum Conference........................................54 Visitors To The Court ..................................................................................55 Library Services To The South Pacific And Thailand.................................55 Chapter 4 Management Of The Court....................................................................57 4.1 Introduction................................................................................................59 Judges’ Committees.....................................................................................59
Recommended publications
  • Annual Report | Page the Library Board of Western Australia 1

    Annual Report | Page the Library Board of Western Australia 1

    2019–2020 ANNUAL REPORT | PAGE THE LIBRARY BOARD OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA 1 Annual Report 2019–2020 of the Library Board of Western Australia 68th Annual Report of the Board Annual Report 2019–2020 Statement of Compliance of the Library Board of Western Australia The State Library of Western Australia Annual Report 2019–2020 of the Library Board of Western Australia 68th Annual Report of the Board 68th Annual Report of the Board To Hon. David Templeman MLA R State Library staff member and a patron in Minister for Culture and the Arts the Foyer of the State Library building, March 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic had a profound In accordance with Section 61 of the Financial Perth Cultural Centre effect on all Western Australians, especially Management Act 2006, and in fulfillment of 25 Francis Street those that do not have access to a computer Perth Western Australia 6000 obligations imposed on the Board by the Library or the Internet at home. While the State Library Board of Western Australia Act 1951, we hereby was closed to the general public, a service was CONTACT US submit for your information and presentation to made available for those in the community that tel (08) 9427 3111 Parliament the Annual Report of the Library Board did not have access so that they could engage tel 1800 198 107 (WA country callers) of Western Australia for the year ended 30 June 2020. with government service and support providers, fax (08) 9427 3256 email [email protected] seek employment and stay in touch with family This Report has been prepared in accordance with and friends.
  • The Toohey Legacy: Rights and Freedoms, Compassion and Honour

    The Toohey Legacy: Rights and Freedoms, Compassion and Honour

    The Toohey Legacy: rights and freedoms, compassion and honour Introduction This year is the 25th anniversary of the Mabo decision, in which the late John Toohey played a significant role. It is fitting, therefore, that I commence with a reference to Malo’s Law which was oft repeated during the evidence in that case: Malo tag mauki mauki, Teter mauki mauki. Malo tag aorir aorir, Teter aorir aorir. Malo tag tupamait tupamait, Teter tupamait tupamait Malo keeps his hands to himself; he does not touch what is not his. He does not permit his feet to carry him Towards another man’s property. His hands are not grasping He holds them back. He does not wander from his path. He walks on tiptoe, silent, careful, Leaving no sign to tell that This is the way he took. Malo is the God, in the form of an octopus, who gave the Meriam people the laws they live by. He laid his tentacles down on the Island of Mer, creating the 1 8 tribes of Mer and he gave them the rule that they should not trespass on one another’s lands. Consistently with Malo’s law, I acknowledge that this event is occurring on the traditional land of the Whadjuk People of the Nyungar Nation. I acknowledge their elders and thank them for welcoming us onto this site alongside the Derbal Yerrigan1. Eleanor Roosevelt said that “great minds discuss ideas, average minds discuss events, small minds discuss people”. The focus of this address is upon the ideas discussed by the Honourable John Leslie Toohey AC QC, expressed in his judgments and occasional lectures.
  • The University of Western Australia Law Review: the First Seventy Years

    The University of Western Australia Law Review: the First Seventy Years

    1 THE UNIVERSITY OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA LAW REVIEW: THE FIRST SEVENTY YEARS MICHAEL BLAKENEY* I FOUNDATION The two oldest Australian university law journals are the UWA Law Review and the Queensland University Law Review, both founded in 1948. In his foreword to the first issue of the UWA Law Review the Hon. Sir John Dwyer, Chief Justice of Western Australia, noting the coming of age of the School of Law in the University of Western Australia, which had been established in 1927 and explained that “now in the enthusiasm of early maturity it has planned the publication of an Annual Law Review of a type and on a scale not hitherto attempted in any Australian University.” The Chief Justice in his foreword identified the desirable objectives of the Law Review. He wrote: It is too much to-day to expect statutory recognition, prompt and adequate, by legislatures almost exclusively preoccupied with economic questions. It is necessary to have a considerable body of informed opinion to show the needs and point the way; and the creation of such a body depends in turn on an explanation and understanding of our institutions, an exposition of the underlying principles of our laws and customs, an examination of their moral sources, a comparison with other legal systems, a criticism_ of applications and interpretations that may appear to be dubious. There is no better mode of achieving such ends than a Review devoted to such purposes, and this first number is a satisfactory step in the right direction. The example set in 1948 by the Universities of Western Australia and Queensland in establishing their law reviews was followed by the University of Sydney in 1953, when it established the Sydney Law Review and in 1957 with the establishment of the Melbourne University Law Review; the University of Tasmania Law Review in 1958; the Adelaide Law Review in 1960 and the Australian National University’s Federal Law Review in 1964.

  • Melbourne's Legal Precinct

    General Melbourne’s legal precinct A guide to the institutions that make up Melbourne’s legal precinct This publication highlights key legal institutions of direct interest to students, the general public and those working in the legal system. It also indicates which buildings are open to the public or offer tours for visitors. Please note that some buildings restrict the number of visitors and the areas you may visit. Others are only open to the public during Law Week in May. Members of the public can attend court hearings, except in very rare circumstances; however, be aware that all courts have security screening arrangements and do not allow photography inside their buildings. Tours of the Supreme Court of Victoria and County Court of Victoria for VCE Legal Studies students are available. To book, email [email protected]. Students can also tour the Melbourne Magistrates’ Court. To book, email [email protected]. For information about Law Week, visit www.lawweek.net.au. For information about Victoria Law Foundation’s school programs, and teacher resources, visit www.victorialawfoundation.org.au. www.Find out more at... victorialaw foundation. org.au Historic buildings Russell Street Melbourne 01 Justice Museum 377 Russell Street, Melbourne The new Russell Street Melbourne Justice Museum, developed by the National Trust, integrates three heritage buildings in the heart of Melbourne’s original legal precinct. These buildings include the Old Melbourne Gaol, the former Magistrates’ Court and the former City Watch House. The museum provides visitors with a contemporary experience through which today’s legal systems, justice networks, laws, courts and prisons can be better understood (entry fee applies).
  • Volume I Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons Dated 15 June 2010 for The

    Volume I Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons Dated 15 June 2010 for The

    Report of the Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 15 June 2010 for the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry The Rt Hon The Lord Saville of Newdigate (Chairman) Bloody Sunday Inquiry – Volume I Bloody Sunday Inquiry – Volume The Hon William Hoyt OC The Hon John Toohey AC Volume I Outline Table of Contents General Introduction Glossary Principal Conclusions and Overall Assessment Published by TSO (The Stationery Office) and available from: Online The Background to Bloody www.tsoshop.co.uk Mail, Telephone, Fax & E-mail Sunday TSO PO Box 29, Norwich NR3 1GN Telephone orders/General enquiries: 0870 600 5522 Order through the Parliamentary Hotline Lo-Call: 0845 7 023474 Fax orders: 0870 600 5533 E-mail: [email protected] Textphone: 0870 240 3701 The Parliamentary Bookshop 12 Bridge Street, Parliament Square, London SW1A 2JX This volume is accompanied by a DVD containing the full Telephone orders/General enquiries: 020 7219 3890 Fax orders: 020 7219 3866 text of the report Email: [email protected] Internet: www.bookshop.parliament.uk TSO@Blackwell and other Accredited Agents Customers can also order publications from £572.00 TSO Ireland 10 volumes 16 Arthur Street, Belfast BT1 4GD not sold Telephone: 028 9023 8451 Fax: 028 9023 5401 HC29-I separately Return to an Address of the Honourable the House of Commons dated 15 June 2010 for the Report of the Bloody Sunday Inquiry The Rt Hon The Lord Saville of Newdigate (Chairman) The Hon William Hoyt OC The Hon John Toohey AC Ordered by the House of Commons
  • Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia

    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia

    Seeing Visions and Dreaming Dreams Judicial Conference of Australia Colloquium Chief Justice Robert French AC 7 October 2016, Canberra Thank you for inviting me to deliver the opening address at this Colloquium. It is the first and last time I will do so as Chief Justice. The soft pink tones of the constitutional sunset are deepening and the dusk of impending judicial irrelevance is advancing upon me. In a few weeks' time, on 25 November, it will have been thirty years to the day since I was commissioned as a Judge of the Federal Court of Australia. The great Australian legal figures who sat on the Bench at my official welcome on 10 December 1986 have all gone from our midst — Sir Ronald Wilson, John Toohey, Sir Nigel Bowen and Sir Francis Burt. Two of my articled clerks from the 1970s are now on the Supreme Court of Western Australia. One of them has recently been appointed President of the Court of Appeal. They say you know you are getting old when policemen start looking young — a fortiori when the President of a Court of Appeal looks to you as though he has just emerged from Law School. The same trick of perspective leads me to see the Judicial Conference of Australia ('JCA') as a relatively recent innovation. Six years into my judicial career, in 1992, I attended a Supreme and Federal Courts Judges' Conference at which Justices Richard McGarvie and Ian Sheppard were talking about the establishment of a body to represent the common interests and concerns of judges, to defend the judiciary as an institution and, where appropriate, to defend individual judges who were the target of unfair and unwarranted criticisms.
  • Senior Counsel Appointments 2012

    Senior Counsel Appointments 2012

    SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Stirling Gardens Barrack Street Perth WA 6000 __________________________________________________________________________ 28 November, 2012 MEDIA STATEMENT SENIOR COUNSEL APPOINTMENTS 2012 The Chief Justice of Western Australia, the Hon Wayne Martin AC, today announced the appointment of two Senior Counsel for 2012, after 14 applications were received. The appointments are Mr Rod Hooper and Mr Joshua Thomson. Appointment as Senior Counsel is based on eminence in the practice of law, especially in advocacy, unquestioned integrity, availability and independence. A Committee advises the Chief Justice on applications for appointment. The Committee, chaired by Chief Justice Martin, comprises the President of the Court of Appeal, the Senior Judge of the Supreme Court, the President of the State Administrative Tribunal, the Senior Judge of the Federal Court resident in Perth, the Chief Judge of the Family Court and the Chief Judge of the District Court. Mr Rod Hooper Mr Hooper was born in June 1956. He was awarded a Bachelor of Jurisprudence in 1982 and a Bachelor of Laws in 1983 from the University of Western Australia. He established a suburban law practice in 1986 and became an accredited Specialist Family Lawyer in 1992. He joined the Independent Bar in 1999, and was a foundation member of John Toohey Chambers in 2003. Mr Hooper has been President of the Family Law Practitioners’ Association for the last three years, having practised in the field of family law for more than 26 years. Mr Joshua Thomson Mr Thomson was born in July 1972. He was awarded a Bachelor of Laws (1 st Class Honours) in 1994 from the University of Western Australia, winning the Hackett Scholarship, and a Bachelor of Civil Law (1996) from Oxford University.
  • Imagereal Capture

    Imagereal Capture

    PREFACE EMERITUS PROFESSOR ERIC J. EDWARDS Professor Eric Edwards retired from the University of Western Australia Law School on 31 December 1980, after twenty-five years distinguished and loyal service. This volume of the Law Review is dedicated to him by his colleagues as a mark of profound respect and admiration. Professor Edwards was born in Burma in 1915. He attended the Uni- versity of Rangoon, graduating BA with a distinction in economics in 1936 and LL.B in 1939. With the outbreak of war, he volunteered for officer training; he then spent the duration of the war fighting with the British Army in the Burma and India theatres. This is a period of his life about which, being a gentle and modest man, he has always been reticent; suffice it to say that by the time he was discharged he had risen to the rank of Lieutenant Colonel. For his return to civilian life he chose to be repatriated to Australia. Passing through Fremantle en route to Sydney in 1947, he came up to the University and met Professor Frank Beasley, foundation Professor and first Dean of the Law School. Beasley encouraged him to enrol here to recommence his legal career. Thus there began the long association with the Law School which was to culrninate'in his election to the Dean- ship and appointment to a Chair. His period at the Law School was a vintage one; his contemporaries included such luminaries as Sir Ronald Wilson, Sir Billy Sneddon, Mr Bob Hawke, Mr Justice Bob Jones and Mr Justice John Toohey.
  • Judges and Retirement Ages

    Judges and Retirement Ages

    JUDGES AND RETIREMENT AGES ALYSIA B LACKHAM* All Commonwealth, state and territory judges in Australia are subject to mandatory retirement ages. While the 1977 referendum, which introduced judicial retirement ages for the Australian federal judiciary, commanded broad public support, this article argues that the aims of judicial retirement ages are no longer valid in a modern society. Judicial retirement ages may be causing undue expense to the public purse and depriving the judiciary of skilled adjudicators. They are also contrary to contemporary notions of age equality. Therefore, demographic change warrants a reconsideration of s 72 of the Constitution and other statutes setting judicial retirement ages. This article sets out three alternatives to the current system of judicial retirement ages. It concludes that the best option is to remove age-based limitations on judicial tenure. CONTENTS I Introduction .............................................................................................................. 739 II Judicial Retirement Ages in Australia ................................................................... 740 A Federal Judiciary .......................................................................................... 740 B Australian States and Territories ............................................................... 745 III Criticism of Judicial Retirement Ages ................................................................... 752 A Critiques of Arguments in Favour of Retirement Ages ........................
  • The Toohey Legacy: Rights and Freedoms, Compassion and Honour

    The Toohey Legacy: Rights and Freedoms, Compassion and Honour

    57 THE TOOHEY LEGACY: RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS, COMPASSION AND HONOUR GREG MCINTYRE* I INTRODUCTION John Toohey is a person whom I have admired as a model of how to behave as a lawyer, since my first years in practice. A fundamental theme of John Toohey’s approach to life and the law, which shines through, is that he remained keenly aware of the fact that there are groups and individuals within our society who are vulnerable to the exercise of power and that the law has a role in ensuring that they are not disadvantaged by its exercise. A group who clearly fit within that category, and upon whom a lot of John’s work focussed, were Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples. In 1987, in a speech to the Student Law Reform Society of Western Australia Toohey said: Complex though it may be, the relation between Aborigines and the law is an important issue and one that will remain with us;1 and in Western Australia v Commonwealth (Native Title Act Case)2 he reaffirmed what was said in the Tasmanian Dam Case,3 that ‘[t]he relationship between the Aboriginal people and the lands which they occupy lies at the heart of traditional Aboriginal culture and traditional Aboriginal life’. A University of Western Australia John Toohey had a long-standing relationship with the University of Western Australia, having graduated in 1950 in Law and in 1956 in Arts and winning the F E Parsons (outstanding graduate) and HCF Keall (best fourth year student) prizes. He was a Senior Lecturer at the Law School from 1957 to 1958, and a Visiting Lecturer from 1958 to 1965.
  • 1805. 1806. 1807. 1808. 1809. 1810. Michael Kirby & Leadership. Article by John Heard, Newman College, University of Melbour

    1805. 1806. 1807. 1808. 1809. 1810. Michael Kirby & Leadership. Article by John Heard, Newman College, University of Melbour

    C)\IF 1805. Michael Kirby & Leadership. Article by John Heard, Newman College, University of Melbourne. 1806. Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights and UNAIDS. International Expert Consultation. Advancing Care, treatment and Support for People Living with . HIV/AIDS: Updating Guideline 6 of the International Guidelines on HIV/AIDS and Human Rights. 1807. Book Review, Nugget Coomobs -A- A Reforming Life by Tim Rowse. 1808. Foreword. Refugee Status Law in Australia by Roz Germov and Francesco Motta. 1809. August 2002 Revision of paper: Princeton University, Princeton Project on Universal Jurisdiction. Universal Jurisdiction and Judicial Reluctance: A New "Fourteen Points"Points". .,.,1 1810. Future Leaders. Sidney Myer Asia Centre - University of Melbourne. Discussion 26 July 2002. Australia, A Country of Law & Justice. 1811 . Judicial Officers Bulletin. The rise and rise of the magistracy. 1812. Why has the High Court Become More involved in Criminal Appeals. 1813. Black and White, Adelaide Law Review. 1814. Oral History, HIV/AIDS, National Library of Australia. 1815. Book Review, A New Constitution for Australia by Bede Harris. Foreword. Conflict Management: A Practical Guide by Peter Condliffe. Foreword: Homosexual Rights as Human Rights: activism in Indonesia, Singapore and Australia by Baden Offord. 1818. Chain Reaction Foundation, Inaugural address, 16 October 2002. Towards and Inclusive Society. 1819. The University of Melbourne, Faculty of Law. Public Law and Legal Theory, Research Paper No 33, 2002. International Law as a Tool of Constitutional Interpretation. 1820. International Association of Youth and Family Judges and Magistrates. XVI World Congress, Melbourne, Australia, 27 October 2002. Children and Family Law. Paramount Interests and Human Rights.
  • Designing the Courtroom of the Future

    Designing the Courtroom of the Future

    Designing the Courtroom of the Future Paper delivered at the International Conference on Court Excellence 27–29 January 2016 Singapore Robert McDougall* Introduction 1 In Franz Kafka’s The Trial, a bewildered protagonist known simply as ‘K’ struggles to navigate the mysterious judicial system of a state under the laws of which he is alleged to have committed an unspecified offence. As the story unfolds, K becomes increasingly unsettled and desperate. Each encounter with the maze of tribunals, courtrooms, public galleries and private offices confounds and disorients him: It was not so much finding court offices even here that shocked K, he was mainly shocked at himself, at his own naïvety in court matters. It seemed to him that one of the most basic rules governing how a defendant should behave was always to be prepared, never allow surprises, never to look, unsuspecting, to the right when the judge stood beside him to his left – and this was the very basic rule that he was continually violating. A long corridor extended in front of him, air blew in from it which, compared with the air in the studio, was refreshing. There were benches set along each side of the corridor just as in the waiting area for the office he went to himself. There seemed to be precise rules governing how offices should be equipped.1 2 For the distinguished members of this audience it might be difficult now to recall a time when you, too, experienced the unsettling sensation of being overwhelmed by the legal system’s complexity. However it must not be forgotten that for many users of the court system today, Kafka’s depiction would not be too far off the mark.