Boral Resources (Qld) P/L v. Griffiths T/A Hitech Tilt Constructions

[2007] QCA 197

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:	Boral Resources (Qld) P/L v Griffiths T/A Hitech Tilt Constructions [2007] QCA 197
PARTIES:	BORAL RESOURCES (QLD) PTY LTD ACN 009 671 809 (plaintiff/respondent) v DAVID JAMES GRIFFITHS TRADING AS HITECH TILT CONSTRUCTIONS (defendant/applicant)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 6035 of 2005 DC No 1613/03
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Miscellaneous Application – Civil Application for Security for Costs
ORIGINATING COURT:	District Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	1 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	1 June 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P
ORDER:	The applications are dismissed for want of prosecution
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – COURTS AND JUDGES GENERALLY – COURTS – DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDINGS FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – where the matter was listed at the request of the Court of Appeal Registry – where the parties had failed to file a Form 68 Consent Dismissal after numerous written requests – where there was no appearance by or on behalf of either party – whether the applications should be dismissed for want of prosecution
COUNSEL:	No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent
SOLICITORS:	No appearance by or on behalf of the applicant No appearance by or on behalf of the respondent

THE PRESIDENT:  No appearance for either of the parties to these applications.  The matter has been listed at the request of the Court Registry.  There are three applications:  One filed on the 11th of December 2006, one on the 21st of December 2006 and one on the 11th of February 2007.  Two of these relate to the applicant, Mr Griffiths, seeking to re-open and re-hear an originating application which was struck out in 2005.  The third is an application by the respondent Boral for security of the costs.

These applications were listed for hearing on 21 February 2007.  The parties gave written advice on 20 February 2007 that the matter had settled.  For that reason, the applications were de-listed and the hearing did not proceed on that date.  Despite several written requests from Registry staff on 28 March 2007 and 18 May 2007, the parties have not filed a form 68 Consent Dismissal, nor have they advised the Registry of their current intention.

The letter of 18 May 2007 informed each of the parties that if they did not provide a consent agreement to dismiss the application by 1 p.m. on 30 May 2007, the matter would be listed for mention at 9.30 today.  The matter was in the law list for mention today.  The letter also stated that appearances will be required by all parties at that time to show cause why the applications should not be dismissed by the Court and costs orders made.

At 20 to 10, after the delivery of judgments and the name of this matter being called thrice outside the courtroom door, there has still been no appearance by the parties.  I expect the solicitors for the respondent - the applicant, Mr Griffiths, apparently being unrepresented - at least on the record - to let the Registry staff know the reason for their discourtesy in not appearing this morning, and an explanation or apology to be provided to me.

The history of this matter followed by the non-appearance of the parties today demonstrates that the only appropriate order is that these applications be dismissed for want of prosecution.  The order is that each of these applications is dismissed for want of prosecution.

‑‑‑‑‑