Gray v Davis

[2009] QDC 366

[2009] QDC 366

DISTRICT COURT

CIVIL JURISDICTION

JUDGE ROBIN QC

No 2273 of 2007

TREVOR EDWARD GRAY  and 
SANDRA LORRAIN GRAY

Plaintiffs

and

BERNARD JOHN DAVIS  and
MICHAEL BERNARD DAVIS 

and

AUSTRALIAN WOOL AND PASTORAL AGENCY LIMITED

First Defendant

Second defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 12/10/2009

ORDER

CATCHWORDS
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 7(1)

Time limited by court to provide particulars extended, after it had lapsed - extenuating circumstances

HIS HONOUR:  The Court makes an order in terms of the initialled draft.  It extends the time for compliance with orders made by me by consent on the 30th of June 2009 until the 13th of November 2009 and reserves the first defendant's costs of and incidental to the application.

It is their application - occasioned by the difficulty encountered in providing particulars by the date indicated in the consent order.

The first defendants are already late.  The background is a dispute about the quality and condition of cattle which were sold, the second defendant company being involved as a del credere agent.  Ms Chalmers representing the company appears - it having been served - but didn't take an active role in the application. 

The applicant/first defendants have had bad luck in obtaining the expert report that is required in relation to the values of beasts, likely losses occasioned and the like.  The first expert engaged has pulled out for health reasons.  The replacement expert located who happened to be a member of the same firm was unsatisfactory because the first defendants considered his fees for the work he proposed to do excessive.  A further replacement has been found who indicates willingness to get the work done in time to allow the first defendants to comply with the extended date.

Rule 7(1) of the UCPR is the basis of the application.  It's clear that it can be brought, notwithstanding that the time to be extended has already elapsed - the date to be extended has already passed. 

There's been no appearance for the plaintiffs when called today at Court although service on them is established by Ms Graham's affidavit.  The first defendants' commendable attitude in seeking to regularise the situation in which, for reasons explained, they find themselves in default is commendable and the Court ought to indulge them in the absence of opposition.

...

‑‑‑‑‑