Ashton v Stonebridge

[2003] QCA 302

COURT OF APPEAL
JERRARD JA

Appeal No 2540 of 2003 Appeal No 2541 of 2003

EARL EDWIN ASHTON	Respondent/Plaintiff
and
COLIN ROY STONEBRIDGE	Applicant/Defendant
BRISBANE ..DATE 18/07/2003
JUDGMENT
18072003 T03/SLF1 M/T COA137/2003
JERRARD JA: In this matter I am satisfied that the applicant	1
solicitors, Messrs Amarandos and Company, have complied with the requirements of rule 990. That is, they have, by letter dated 5th June 2003, informed the appellant of their intention to cease acting for him and of the steps he is obliged or

requested to take pursuant to rule 990 of the Uniform Civil
Procedure Rules.

Further, having given him timely notice of that they have, I am satisfied, served him with this application filed 11th July

2003 for leave to withdraw from the record. I am satisfied,
from information supplied to me by Mr Gray, of counsel, and
from the affidavit read by leave today from George Amarandos,
that that application was served by prepaid ordinary post upon

the appellant at his residential address at 11 Ira Buckby Road

Joyner and that the earlier correspondence to him was
addressed to him at his business address of Post Office Box

5497 Brendale Queensland 4500.

I order as follows. In each of Appeal No. 2540 and 2541 of

2003, firstly, that Messrs Amarandos and Company be given leave to withdraw to be assessed on the standard basis.
leave to withdraw from the record, secondly, that the
appellant, Colin Roy Stonebridge, pay to Messrs Amarandos and

And, thirdly, that all correspondence in this appeal with the

appellant, whether by way of service or otherwise, be sent and

addressed to him at each of Post Office Box 5497 Brendale

2 JUDGMENT 60

18072003 T03/SLF1 M/T COA137/2003

Queensland 4500 and 11 Ira Buckby Road, Joyner, Queensland.	1
Thank you for your assistance.

-----

10
20
30
40
50

3 JUDGMENT 60

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Court of Appeal, presided over by Jerrard JA, heard appeals in the matter of Ashton v Stonebridge. The primary dispute between the parties revolves around the defendant's request to have his solicitors, Amarandos and Company, withdraw from the proceedings. The plaintiff, Ashton, contested the application for leave to withdraw, leading to the need for the court to determine whether the solicitors could legally withdraw from the case.

The legal issues that the court had to address included whether the solicitors had complied with the procedural requirements set out in rule 990 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules. Specifically, the court needed to confirm that the solicitors had notified the defendant of their intention to cease acting for him and had informed him of the necessary steps he needed to take. Additionally, the court needed to ensure that the application for leave to withdraw was properly served on the defendant and that all future correspondence was appropriately directed to him.

In resolving the matter, the court found that the solicitors had fulfilled their obligations under rule 990 by notifying the defendant of their intention to withdraw and by serving the application for leave to withdraw. The court also confirmed that the solicitors had correctly served the application by prepaid ordinary post and had provided the necessary information regarding the defendant's addresses. Consequently, the court granted the solicitors leave to withdraw from the case, ordered the defendant to pay the solicitors' costs, and directed that all future correspondence be sent to the defendant's specified addresses.

In summary, the court granted the solicitors' application to withdraw, ordered the defendant to pay the solicitors' costs, and specified the addresses for future correspondence with the defendant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established