Amos v Wiltshire

[2014] QCA 194

COURT OF APPEAL

MUIR JA
NORTH J
FLANAGAN J

Appeal No 17 of 2014
DC No 1527 of 2009

EDWARD AMOS Appellant

CHRISTOPHER WILTSHIRE Respondent

BRISBANE

TUESDAY, 12 AUGUST 2014

MUIR JA: When this matter came on for hearing this morning, there was no appearance for the appellant. The matter was called three times. No one appeared in response. The court file reveals that, on 27 June 2014, the registry contacted the solicitors for the appellant and the solicitors for the respondent advising of the hearing date. A copy of the hard copy of the email of that date will be exhibit A.

MUIR JA: On the face of it, the appeal is out of time. There is no application for any extension of time. The appeal is effectively in respect of a costs order only. Solicitors for the respondent, or it may be counsel for the respondent, spoke to the solicitors for the appellant by telephone. The court was informed to the effect that those solicitors were making inquiries as to how they were, as it was claimed, unaware of the hearing this morning. The court has received no intimation that solicitors or counsel on behalf of the appellant are attempting to appear, or even intend to appear this morning. In the circumstances, it is appropriate that the appeal be dismissed.

MR BOULTON: I ask for the costs, your Honour.

MUIR JA: The order of the court will be that the appeal be dismissed with costs.

MR BOULTON: Yes. Yes, thank you, your Honour.

NORTH J: I agree with the orders proposed and with the reasons.

FLANAGAN J: I agree with the reasons of the presiding judge and with the proposed orders.

MUIR JA: Adjourn the court.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Edward Amos filed an appeal against Christopher Wiltshire in the Queensland Court of Appeal, challenging a costs order made in the District Court. The appeal was dismissed due to the appellant's failure to appear at the hearing. The Court of Appeal was satisfied that the registry had properly notified the appellant's solicitors of the hearing date, and there was no application for an extension of time. Despite inquiries by the respondent's solicitors, the appellant did not appear or make any attempt to do so.

The legal issue before the court was whether the appeal should proceed given the appellant's non-appearance. The Court of Appeal determined that the appeal was effectively in respect of a costs order only and that the appeal was out of time without an application for an extension. The appellant's solicitors had made inquiries regarding their unawareness of the hearing but did not provide any justification for their failure to appear. The court found it appropriate to dismiss the appeal in these circumstances.

In the absence of any appearance or representation from the appellant, the Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal with costs awarded to the respondent. The judges unanimously agreed with the proposed orders and the reasons provided by Muir JA. The appeal was dismissed, and the court awarded costs to the respondent, Christopher Wiltshire.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established