Juliette Brodsky

Actually, Clive, you read with Sir John Young.

Clive Tadgell

Yes.

Juliette Brodsky

Can you recall for us much about Sir John Young in terms of any specific idiosyncrasies?

Clive Tadgell

Well, he was a very fashionable junior, I think it’s fair to say.

James Merralls

Always beautifully dressed. He lectured us at the university as well.

Clive Tadgell

Thereby hangs a tale, because when I went to read with him in 1960 he about six months afterwards had a trip to the Privy Council and what to do? Because I think he went by ship with (Sir Henry) Winneke and (Gregory) Gowans and various others, what to do with his lecturing in company law and he asked me to take it on, which was something for which I was ill-equipped I thought, but he gave me all his notes and I lectured in it for about 3 or 4 months. And that was very beneficial to me as it turned out, because I lectured a whole lot of people who afterwards when they graduated thought that I knew something about company law, and I had quite a lot of work from them.

Juliette Brodsky

Was that about the time too that you were assisting in compiling a book, the book that was called Wallace and Young’s Australian Company Law Practice?

Clive Tadgell

Yes, that’s right. While I was reading, Young was doing it with Wallace who was a judge in NSW and Young co-opted his pupils and former pupils. There was Todd, Robert Todd, and Searby and myself and one other, one from Sydney I think … I forget – he became quite celebrated.

John Batt

The fashion lady’s husband.

Bill Ormiston

Spender?

Clive Tadgell

(John) Spender, that’s right.

Bill Ormiston

And you were all acknowledged either on the title page or …

Clive Tadgell

On the spine, indeed, which was more than we deserved, I think.

Juliette Brodsky

But that was the beginning of your practice in company law?

Clive Tadgell

I suppose it was.

JD Phillips

And that was an advantage we enjoyed as students to have practitioners participating in some of the lectures – Murray McInerney taught us in evidence and John Young in company law, wasn’t it?

John Batt

And Richard Newton in executors and trustees.

JD Phillips

That’s right.

Clive Tadgell

That’s right and that was particularly good.

Bill Ormiston

I have an exam paper set by Richard Newton and he spent his time giving examples and the questions were based on sets of circumstances and they referred to people whom he knew but were referred to by first names and one had to guess if one was interested, and he did refer to Keith Aickin in this passage. He said, “In the meantime, Godfrey and Morris obtain advice from Keith as to whether Allan’s offer ought to be accepted. Keith is a Queen’s Counsel of great eminence who has read Levy v Williams [1925] VLR 615 and he advises the whole of the advances could be recovered…” and so on. If you knew anything about him, one knew that the reference to “Keith” was Keith Aickin.

James Merralls

I taxed him with a reference to his eminence and I said, “But he’d just taken silk”, and he said, “Mum-um-um-um, yes I know - it was prescient”. (Laughter) But he once referred to a barrister named Richard in one of those papers and Richard made dreadful errors, which led to all sorts of difficulty, and one had to comment on the legal effect of his shortcomings. I once mentioned this to him and I said, “At least you were modest enough to include yourself amongst the miscreants.” And he looked at me in a rather puzzled way and said, “I don’t think so”. I said, “Yes, there was a question about Richard”. He said, “Mum-um-um-um, that wasn’t me, that was the sportsman”, meaning another barrister named Richard. He said, “I think I knew the rule in Hancock v Watson”. (Laughter)

Juliette Brodsky

Just touching briefly on Keith Aickin who was a very singular character, SEK Hulme QC who was interviewed for the Bar oral history recently described Keith Aickin as having a beautiful mind. I was wondering whether you would all agree? Certainly I’ve read some material from you, James, that suggested that and certainly I remember, JD, you described Sir Keith as being a very singular person. Yes?

JD Phillips

Well, my recollection perhaps stems from the time I worked as his junior. I remember him correcting my spelling because I had spelled “tended” wrongly. It was a very busy time of the year just before Christmas. Everything gets a bit frantic if you try to get all the opinions out just before Christmas, and we were working on Christmas Eve and at the end of it we finished all this, we finished the opinion, we signed it, we agreed on the fee – because in those days the silk and the junior worked out the fees together – and then he said to me, this was the day before Christmas, he turned and said “And what’s the date today?” I’ve always remembered that. I think he was the only one who wasn’t conscious of the date around Owen Dixon Chambers that day.

Clive Tadgell

Yes, he was remarkable.

James Merralls

He had beautiful manners. He was a very nice man, had a very quiet manner, (a) quiet manner of presentation as a barrister. I had the great fortune to work with him quite a bit both in writing opinions and also appearances.

Juliette Brodsky

He had quite a collaborative approach, didn’t he?

James Merralls

He did, yes. He was the leading constitutional silk for about 15 years and I was lucky enough to be his junior in a number of cases towards the end of the 1960’s and early 1970’s. What I remember most about him was the brevity of his notes. He worked from headings rather than from prepared scripts, although he prepared his cases very thoroughly. But he, unlike some of the other leaders with whom I appeared at that time, he only had short notes and he appeared to improvise quite a bit in presentation.

Juliette Brodsky

I think you also said that he had an unusual advantage in that his opening statements could often make his arguments impregnable.

James Merralls

Well, that was his style, yes, he took the high ground.

Juliette Brodsky

Yes, and you say that was unusual …

James Merralls

I don’t know if that was unusual, but certainly he did it very effectively.

Bill Ormiston

You mean his openings? Yes. Well, I know, I was told by Dick Griffith if you get your opening right and you’re for the plaintiff, ordinarily, you should win.

JD Phillips

Especially on appeal, you don’t have to start at the beginning on an appeal. Everyone’s read the judgment below and they’ve read a lot of the papers, but so many counsel fall into the trap of starting at the beginning.

Bill Ormiston

Keith’s style differed very much from Richard Newton’s. Richard prepared very detailed notes and he -

Clive Tadgell

See Sek’s remarks to you (Juliette), he said exactly this.

James Merralls

And he adhered to them very closely. His written notes were rather like the written cases that are now presented to the court before the case. Sometimes he handed them up, but usually he just used them as scripts, but he didn’t depart from them and he didn’t like to improvise.

Bill Ormiston

If he had a weakness, I think it was that, that sometimes when he was in a difficult case and he was being pushed by the court, he found it hard to get away from his script, but that’s the only weakness I ever saw.

JD Phillips

Talking of that, (Richard Newton) seemed to lack confidence, which may have come about through his childhood, having this famous father who I rather suspect pushed him.

James Merralls

He didn’t win the Supreme Court prize - he came second. And his father was very upset that his prized son had not won the award and he invited the winner to dinner and the story goes that he was no wiser after the dinner as to why his son had not won the prize.