SUPREME COURT OF THE AUSTRALIAN CAPITAL TERRITORY
Case Title: | Butler & Ors v Daood & Ors |
Citation: | [2017] ACTSC 253 |
Hearing Date(s): | 21 August 2017 |
DecisionDate: | 21 August 2017 |
ReasonsDate: | 1 September 2017 |
Before: | McWilliam AsJ |
Decision: | 1. The appeal is dismissed. 2. The appellants’ solicitors are to pay the third respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed. |
Catchwords: | PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 75 and 76 – application for reinstatement of application taken to have been dismissed – personal injury claim – interests of justice – substantial delay – actual prejudice suffered by a defendant – appeal dismissed |
Legislation Cited: | Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) ss 601AD, 601AH Court Procedures Rules 2006 (ACT) rr 75, 76, 5012, 5014, 6019, 6256 Limitation Act 1985 (ACT) ss 16, 16B |
Cases Cited: | Barry Thomas Blunden v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] ACTSC 123 Brisbane South Regional Health Authority v Taylor (1996) 186 CLR 541 |
Parties: | Robin Jane Butler (First Appellant) Melanie Cathleen Poole (Second Appellant) Rhiannon Catriona Poole (Third Appellant) Amelia Alice Poole, by her litigation guardian, Robin Butler (Fourth Appellant) R & D Counselling and Group Therapy Pty Limited (ACN 088 275 941) (T/as Psych & Soul Clinic) (First Respondent) Ross McNicol Colquhoun (Second Respondent) Dr Jassim Daood (Third Respondent) Phillipe Jacquot (Fourth Respondent) |
Representation: | Counsel Mr D Crowe (Appellants) Mr P Woulfe (Third Respondent) |
| Solicitors Blumers Personal Injury Lawyers (Appellants) DibbsBarker (Third Respondent) | |
File Number(s): | SC 191 of 2011 |
McWilliam AsJ:
On 21 August 2017, I dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Registrar delivered on 8…
Continue reading Butler v Daood
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Butler v Daood [2017] ACTSC 253
- Case
- [2017] ACTSC 253
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appellants' application for reinstatement should be granted, considering the substantial delay and the actual prejudice to the respondents. The court had to balance the interests of justice with the procedural rules governing the reinstatement of dismissed applications. The appellants argued that the delay was not significant enough to warrant dismissal and that there was no actual prejudice to the respondents. Conversely, the respondents contended that the delay was substantial and that they had suffered actual prejudice, which justified the dismissal of the appellants' application.
The court found that the delay in the appellants' application was indeed substantial, and the respondents had suffered actual prejudice as a result. The court considered the factors set out in the relevant rules and found that the delay and prejudice were significant enough to warrant the dismissal of the application. The court emphasised that the interests of justice required the dismissal of the application for reinstatement. The court dismissed the appeal, and ordered that the appellants’ solicitors pay the third respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. The appeal is dismissed.
2. The appellants’ solicitors are to pay the third respondent’s costs as agreed or assessed.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.