ADRIAN Praljak v Bond University Limited

[2022] QCA 213

[2022] QCA 213

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO JA
DALTON JA
HENRY J

Appeal No 6675 of 2021
Appeal No 7563 of 2021
SC No 5369 of 2021
SC No 5371 of 2021

In Appeal No 6675 of 2021:

ADRIAN PRALJAK  Appellant/Respondent

v

BOND UNIVERSITY LIMITED  Respondent/Applicant
ACN 010 694 121

In Appeal No 7563 of 2021:

ADRIAN PRALJAK  Appellant/Respondent

v

JAMES McCONVILL  Respondent/Applicant

BRISBANE

MONDAY, 31 OCTOBER 2022

JUDGMENT

McMURDO JA:  Last year, Mr Praljak commenced these two proceedings in the trial division.  In one, he claimed from Bond University damages on many bases in an amount of $2 million.  In the other, he claimed damages from Dr McConvill, who was the principal of a legal practice which, at one time, had employed Mr Praljak.

On 9 June 2021, Justice Williams struck out his statement of claim against the university and directed that he not re-plead without the Court’s leave to be sought on an application which attached a draft statement of claim.  On 30 June 2021, Justice Freeburn made orders to the same effect in the case against Dr McConvill.

Mr Praljak appealed against those orders by notices of appeal filed against the university on 11 June and against Dr McConvill on 3 July 2021.  Each respondent then applied to have the appeal struck out.  After a hearing of these applications together, on 30 August 2021, President Sofronoff ordered that the notices of appeal be struck out, that no further notice of appeal be filed without the Court’s leave and that the appellant file draft notices of appeal by 16 October 2021.  Costs were reserved.  There was no appeal against the President’s orders.

Now, more than a year later, there is still no draft of a new notice of appeal in either case, and Mr Praljak has taken no other step in these appeals.  Each respondent applies to strike out the appeal for want of prosecution or, alternatively, for a permanent stay of the appeal.  These applications were filed nearly two months ago.

In correspondence with the Registrar last December about the lack of any progress in his appeal against the university, Mr Praljak emailed that he had:

“…absolutely no knowledge in relation to how to redraft and what to say.”

He is a self-represented litigant, although he has a law degree and was admitted to practice in the Australian Capital Territory.  However, he says that he needs a lawyer and admits that he cannot progress the appeals without legal representation.  He has told the Court today of his efforts to secure representation by contacting, amongst other bodies, Legal Aid Queensland, the Queensland Law Society, LawRight and a number of community legal centres, but his endeavours to obtain assistance have been without result.  He has not been entirely inactive.  Apart from writing to the Registrar in terms sometimes containing scandalous and irrelevant allegations, it appears that he has commenced proceedings against the university in the Federal Court without progressing either claim in the Trial Division.

At his request, Mr Praljak was heard in response to today’s application by telephone and not having provided any affidavit to explain his failure to prosecute his appeals.  He has recently sent a number of lengthy emails to the registry, but it is incumbent upon him, by evidence and by submissions, to explain his failure to present his appeals.  In today’s hearing, however, he has candidly explained that, despite his qualifications, he is unable, himself, to progress these appeals, and that is a situation which he does not suggest is at all likely to change.

These are plain cases of lengthy delay also involving breaches of the Court’s orders.  He has had more than a reasonable time to present a draft notice of appeal, if he has an arguable point in either case.  In each appeal, it must be ordered that the appeal be struck out and the appellant be ordered to pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal including reserved costs.

DALTON JA:  I agree.

HENRY J:  I agree.

…

McMURDO JA:  The orders in each appeal will be that the appeal is struck out, and the appellant will pay the respondent’s costs of the appeal, including reserved costs.