BELL J: Mr Reynolds, is that a submission you rely on?
MR REYNOLDS: Your Honour, I mentioned before that I was attempting to approach the matter, I think I put it, in a spirit of strict legalism. I said there were two or three points where - - -
BELL J: And this is one of the two or three?
BELL J: Do you rely on it?
MR REYNOLDS: I have to put at least - - -
BELL J: The answer is yes.
MR REYNOLDS: - - - touch on this. Now, I said - - -
KIEFEL CJ: You do not have to put it at all.
MR REYNOLDS: I am sorry, your Honour.
KIEFEL CJ: You do not have to put it at all. You are senior counsel and you should be putting arguments which are properly addressed to the legal issues, not the opinion of someone who holds a personal, ethical, moral position. You do not adopt that position, Mr Reynolds, and you know that.
MR REYNOLDS: Your Honour, the difficulty I have is that I am responding to a deterrence from a particular thing which, as I explained, has not been identified and all I am saying is that there is another view.
KIEFEL CJ: If you are having difficulty understanding the submissions put against you, perhaps you best leave things to reply.
SOURCE: Clubb v Edwards & Anor; Preston v Avery & Anor [2018] HCATrans 206 (9 October 2018)