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

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.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Boral Resources (Qld) P/L v. Griffiths T/A Hitech Tilt Constructions was heard before the court, where the primary issue was the dismissal of proceedings due to the lack of prosecution. Boral Resources (Qld) P/L, the plaintiff, had initiated legal proceedings against Griffiths T/A Hitech Tilt Constructions, the defendant, but the matter had stalled. The Court of Appeal Registry had listed the matter at the request of the parties, yet despite numerous written requests and notices, neither party had filed the necessary Form 68 Consent Dismissal. Consequently, the court was required to determine whether the applications should be dismissed for the want of prosecution. The court found that both parties had failed to take the necessary steps to progress the matter, resulting in the dismissal of the proceedings.

The court was tasked with examining the procedural obligations of the parties involved in the litigation and whether their failure to comply warranted the dismissal of the proceedings. Specifically, the court had to consider whether the lack of action by the parties, despite multiple opportunities and requests to file the necessary forms, constituted a significant abandonment of the proceedings. The court needed to balance the rights of the parties with the need to maintain an efficient and effective judicial process.

In reaching its decision, the court highlighted the procedural history of the case, noting that both parties had been given ample opportunity to file the required Form 68 Consent Dismissal. The court observed that neither party had appeared or been represented during the proceedings, further indicating a lack of interest in pursuing the matter. Given these circumstances, the court concluded that the proceedings should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The court emphasised the importance of parties adhering to procedural requirements to ensure the fair and efficient administration of justice. Consequently, the court dismissed the applications as there had been a clear failure to prosecute the matter.

The court ordered that the applications be dismissed for want of prosecution. This decision underscores the importance of parties in litigation to adhere to procedural obligations and actively pursue their claims. The dismissal serves as a reminder that courts will not tolerate prolonged inactivity and will take action to ensure the effective management of the judicial process.

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

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

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