Di Carlo v. Dubois & Ors Summary

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Di Carlo v Dubois & Ors [2007] QCA 196

PARTIES:

SALVATORE DI CARLO
(plaintiff/appellant)
v
PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS
(first defendant/first respondent)
DR PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS
(first defendant/first respondent)
PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LIMITED
(ACN 010 673 864)
(second defendant/second respondent)
DENNIS RICHARD OSBORNE, PHILIP JAMES
DUBOIS, STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER, PIYOOSH
KOTECHA, GARY EDWARD O’ROURKE, MARK
JAMES READY, PETER STOREY, CHARLES BRUCE
LEIBOWITZ, PETER CHARLES LUSH, NICHOLAS
DAUNT, DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE AND PETER
FERGUS LEGH TRADING AS QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES
(third defendant/third respondent)
DR MICHAEL CORONEOS

(fifth defendant/forth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 1388 of 2006
SC No 1281 of 1996

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time
General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:

8 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

8 June 2007

JUDGES:

McMurdo P

ORDER:

The orders are:
1. CA 1388 of 2006 is to be heard together with CA
     3622 of 2007
2. The parties are to follow the directions for the
     progression of both these matters given by the
     deputy registrar appeals, or his nominee
3. The applicant, Mr Di Carlo, is to pay the
     respondent's costs of and incidental to today's
     hearing

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – OTHER MATTERS – where matter has progressed little since being filed – where matter closely linked with another application – whether applications should be heard together

COUNSEL:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
P L Freely for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

The appellant appeared on his own behalf
Flower & Hart for the respondents

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I have considered whether this
application for an extension of time in CA 1388 of 2006 should be struck out for want of prosecution.

It has not been progressed in any way by the applicant since its filing on the 20th of February 2006. It does, however, seem to be linked closely with another matter which is to proceed in the Court of Appeal later this year in CA 3622 of
2007. For the time being I am persuaded that the interests of justice are best served by dealing with both these applications together. They will be heard by the Court later this year.

But the applicant, Mr Di Carlo, is certainly on notice that if he does not follow carefully the directions given for the progression of this matter and also for the associated matter in CA 3622 of 2007, the matters will be listed for further directions and he will be at risk of having cost orders made against him, or even having either or both matters struck out for want of prosecution.

I order that CA 1388 of 2006 is to be heard together with
CA 3622 of 2007, and that the parties are to follow the directions for the progression of both these matters given by the Deputy Registrar Appeals, or his nominee.

...

THE PRESIDENT: I have considered carefully the matter of
whether a costs order should be made in this case. I am satisfied on the material that the necessity for today's mention is entirely the fault of Mr Di Carlo's failure to progress the hearing of this matter in any way. It is entirely appropriate in those circumstances that he pays the respondent's costs of and incidental to today's hearing, and that is my order. I direct that a transcript of today's hearing be made.

-----

The case of Di Carlo v Dubois & Ors involved an appeal and new trial matter before the court. The primary issue was the time for an appeal, specifically the extension of time for such an appeal. Additionally, the matter involved other procedural considerations, including whether applications closely linked with another application should be heard together. The case was heard in Queensland, and the primary focus was on the procedural aspects of the appeal.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide involved the procedural timeline for an appeal, including whether the appeal could be extended beyond the standard time frame. Additionally, the court had to consider whether the applications should be heard together given their close connection. The court was tasked with balancing the procedural requirements with the need for efficiency and fairness in the judicial process.

The court's reasoning focused on the procedural aspects of the appeal, particularly the timeliness of the application and the interconnectedness of the matters. The court determined that the applications should indeed be heard together to avoid duplication and ensure consistency in the judicial process. The court also considered the progress of the matter, noting that it had advanced little since being filed, which impacted the timing of the appeal. The court's decision was guided by the need to manage the court's resources efficiently while ensuring that justice is served.

The orders made by the court were to hear CA 1388 of 2006 together with CA 3622 of 2007, to follow the directions given by the deputy registrar appeals or their nominee, and for the applicant, Mr Di Carlo, to pay the respondent's costs associated with the hearing. This decision aimed to streamline the judicial process and ensure that the matters were dealt with in an efficient and fair manner.

Di Carlo v. Dubois & Ors

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

CITATION:	Di Carlo v Dubois & Ors [2007] QCA 196
PARTIES:	SALVATORE DI CARLO (plaintiff/appellant) v PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS (first defendant/first respondent) DR PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS (first defendant/first respondent) PHILIP DUBOIS (MEDICAL) PTY LIMITED (ACN 010 673 864) (second defendant/second respondent) DENNIS RICHARD OSBORNE, PHILIP JAMES DUBOIS, STEPHEN BENNETT KELLER, PIYOOSH KOTECHA, GARY EDWARD O’ROURKE, MARK JAMES READY, PETER STOREY, CHARLES BRUCE LEIBOWITZ, PETER CHARLES LUSH, NICHOLAS DAUNT, DAVID ALEXANDER NOBLE AND PETER FERGUS LEGH TRADING AS QUEENSLAND X-RAY SERVICES (third defendant/third respondent) DR MICHAEL CORONEOS (fifth defendant/forth respondent)
FILE NO/S:	Appeal No 1388 of 2006 SC No 1281 of 1996
DIVISION:	Court of Appeal
PROCEEDING:	Application for Extension of Time General Civil Appeal
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED EX TEMPORE ON:	8 June 2007
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	8 June 2007
JUDGES:	McMurdo P
ORDER:	The orders are: 1. CA 1388 of 2006 is to be heard together with CA 3622 of 2007 2. The parties are to follow the directions for the progression of both these matters given by the deputy registrar appeals, or his nominee 3. The applicant, Mr Di Carlo, is to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to today's hearing
CATCHWORDS:	APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – OTHER MATTERS – where matter has progressed little since being filed – where matter closely linked with another application – whether applications should be heard together
COUNSEL:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf P L Freely for the respondents
SOLICITORS:	The appellant appeared on his own behalf Flower & Hart for the respondents