Connolly v Spence

COURT OF APPEAL [2005] QCA 121

McMURDO P
KEANE JA
PHILIPPIDES J

Appeal No 729 of 2005

HUGH ANTHONY CONNOLLY	Appellant
and
JUDITH CAROLINE SPENCE	Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 15/04/2005

ORDER

APPELLANT conducted his own case
MR M BURNS for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Connolly has asked that this matter be adjourned to enable him to obtain a lawyer to appear on his behalf. It has been explained to him that an adjournment on the day the matter has been listed for hearing will mean that he will have to pay the costs thrown away by the adjournment and he has indicated that he nevertheless wishes to continue with his application for an adjournment.

In the circumstances Mr Connolly should then be given the opportunity to have the assistance of a lawyer in this matter but must understand that when the matter is next listed for hearing, the matter will be expected to proceed whether or not Mr Connolly is then legally represented. The matter will be adjourned to a date to be fixed.

...

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant is to pay the respondent's costs of today's hearing and the costs thrown away by the adjournment.

...

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Connolly v Spence was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Hugh Anthony Connolly, was seeking an adjournment to allow him to obtain legal representation. The respondent, Judith Caroline Spence, opposed the adjournment. The matter was heard by McMurdo P, Keane JA, and Philippides J. The court granted the appellant leave to proceed without representation but warned him that any future adjournment would incur costs.

The central issue before the court was whether the appellant should be granted an adjournment to obtain legal representation. The appellant argued that he required time to secure a lawyer, while the respondent contended that an adjournment would be unjust and wasteful of court resources. The court needed to balance the appellant's right to representation with the principles of justice and efficiency in the administration of proceedings.

The court acknowledged the appellant's right to legal representation but emphasised the importance of proceeding with cases efficiently. The court granted the adjournment but ordered the appellant to pay the respondent's costs for the hearing and the costs incurred by the adjournment. The court warned that future adjournments would be subject to the appellant proceeding with representation. The decision highlighted the court's willingness to accommodate litigants in person but underscored the necessity of proceeding with cases in a timely manner.

The final orders of the court were that the appellant was granted leave to proceed without representation but was to pay the respondent's costs for the hearing and the costs incurred by the adjournment. The matter was adjourned to a date to be fixed. The court further warned the appellant that any future adjournments would require him to proceed with legal representation, or the case would be expected to proceed as listed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established