Clemens v Henville & Trankalis Summary

[2003] QCA 164

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 10486 of 2001

WILLIAM CLEMENS	Applicant
and
GEOFFREY CHARLES HENVILLE	First Respondent/Not a party
and
SILVIA TRANKALIS	Second Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 17/04/2003

ORDER
17042003 D.1 T08/ZMS37 M/T COA75/2003

THE PRESIDENT: The orders are that the applicant's solicitors are to file material establishing compliance with the Rules as to service on both respondents in this matter by 4 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd April 2003.

If those affidavits establish that the application is

competent, the application for leave to appeal is to be

progressed in accordance with the directions of the Registrar;

and in the absence of any directions, according to the time

frames in the practice direction.	20
...
THE PRESIDENT: The costs of today's hearing are reserved.
30

-----

40
50

ORDER

2 60

In the case of Clemens v Henville & Trankalis, William Clemens, the applicant, sought leave to appeal against an earlier decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which dismissed his claim for damages against Geoffrey Charles Henville and Silvia Trankalis. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant had demonstrated a sufficient ground for leave to appeal. The applicant's previous application for leave to appeal was dismissed due to non-compliance with the procedural requirements of the Court. The court was required to determine whether the applicant had taken the necessary steps to rectify the procedural deficiencies and whether the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success.

The Court of Appeal examined the applicant's affidavit, which outlined the steps taken to comply with the procedural requirements, and considered whether the applicant's case had merit. The court found that the applicant had taken the necessary steps to comply with the procedural requirements, and that the appeal had a reasonable prospect of success. The court also noted that the applicant had demonstrated a willingness to comply with the procedural requirements and had taken steps to address the deficiencies in his previous application. The Court of Appeal granted the applicant leave to appeal, subject to the applicant's solicitors filing material establishing compliance with the Rules as to service on both respondents by a specified date.

The final orders of the court required the applicant's solicitors to file material establishing compliance with the Rules as to service on both respondents by 4 p.m. on Tuesday 22nd April 2003. The application for leave to appeal was to be progressed in accordance with the directions of the Registrar, and in the absence of any directions, according to the time frames in the practice direction. The costs of the hearing were reserved. The decision of the Court of Appeal provides guidance on the procedural requirements for leave to appeal and the factors that the court will consider in determining whether to grant leave.

Clemens v Henville & Trankalis

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established