Henderson v Taylor

[2006] QCA 288

[2006] QCA 288

COURT OF APPEAL

JERRARD JA

Appeal No 3458 of 2006

PAUL DAVID HENDERSON	(appellant/applicant)
and CATHI TAYLOR (aka CATHERINE MARY TAYLOR),
INFORMATION COMMISSIONER QUEENSLAND	(respondent/respondent)
and
RACHEL MOSS, ASSISTANT	(not party to appeal/respondent)

INFORMATION COMMISSIONER QUEENSLAND

BRISBANE

..DATE 04/08/2006

ORDER
JERRARD JA: This matter is a direction hearing called by the
Court.

The general background circumstances are that on 1 August 2005 the appellant filed proceedings in the Trial Division of this Court for injunction and declaratory orders. On 9 January 2006 he filed an application for orders that the Court find the respondents in that proceeding in contempt in those proceedings. On 17 February 2006 he was ordered to provide particulars, and did so, but on 30 March 2006 his application for those orders finding contempt were dismissed.

The Judge hearing that proceeding held that there was no evidence supporting a complaint in three of the four particulars and the evidence filed in respect of the fourth were insufficient to make out the particularised contempt. On 27 April 2006 Mr Henderson appealed against those orders dismissing his application finding contempt.

The preparation of the appeal has been delayed in part because
the respondent to it sought orders for security for costs on
that appeal and the respondent's material, which was
relatively extensive, filed in support of that application
contended that Mr Henderson had poor prospects of success on
any ground of appeal. That application was dismissed on
25 July 2006.

It remains a fact that although there is a reason for some delay of preparation for this appeal hearing caused by the actions of the respondent in unsuccessfully seeking security for costs Mr Henderson has nevertheless shown difficulties in preparing and presenting the appeal perhaps of the same nature as those that he showed in preparing and presenting his prosecution on the charges of contempt.

Those difficulties resulted in a directions hearing on 9 June 2006 conducted by The President in which she made orders, which included that the parties comply with an amended timetable. That amended timetable was supplied on 16 June 2006 and, I repeat, admittedly before Mr Henderson became embroiled in the contention that he provide security for costs. But one of the requirements of that timetable was that the draft settled index be provided by the 28 July 2006. That has not happened. The Registrar has not received that.

The appeal index is an important document because it identifies the contents of the appeal record. It appears common ground that the respondents prepared their version of the appealed index but Mr Henderson has not produced his. Hence this directions hearing.

On the directions hearing Mr Henderson read, by leave, an affidavit filed today and asked that I disqualify myself or not sit. He provided no actual grounds. He contended that his affidavit explained his delay in preparation of his version of the index to the appeal record but, with respect, neither his affidavit nor the statements he made in Court provide any sensible reason for the delay in preparing the index to the appeal record or any description of any real difficulties in preparing at least his version.

It is important that that document be prepared and that appeals be prosecuted properly and efficiently and without delay. I see no reason why Mr Henderson cannot prepare his version of the draft index by 4 pm on Tuesday 8 August 2006, and I intend to order that he does.

I order accordingly that Mr Henderson, the appellant, prepare
his version of the draft index to the appeal record and
deliver it to the Registry of this Court by 4 pm on Tuesday
8 August 2006, and that in default of compliance with that

order that the appeal stand dismissed for want of prosecution.

-----