Ivory v Telstra Corp Ltd

[2001] QCA 437

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 4059 and 4423 of 2001

KENNETH CLYDE IVORY Appellant/Plaintiff

TELSTRA CORPORATION LIMITED First Respondent/
First Defendant

and

STEPHEN JOHN MEAD Second Respondent/
Second Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 11/10/2001

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: I direct that in general civil appeals 4059 and 4423 of 2001 the appellant is to comply with the timetable for the preparation and filing of material given by the Deputy Registrar Appeals.

In default of compliance, the appeals are to be listed before the Court of Appeal on 7 November 2001 for the appellant to show cause why the appeals should not be struck out for want of prosecution.

At that time, any evidence the appellant replies upon to justify any non-compliance with the directions of the Deputy Registrar Appeals, is to be in affidavit form and any medical practitioners whose opinion he relies upon are to be made available for cross-examination either in person or by telephone link.

The application for security for costs is also adjourned till 7 November 2001 before the Court of Appeal. The costs of today's hearing are reserved. A transcript is requested of today's proceedings.

The Deputy Registrar Appeals has reminded me that because the security for costs application is now progressing, outlines will have to be filed in that application in the usual way by both parties.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter before the Court of Appeal was an appeal by Kenneth Clyde Ivory against Telstra Corporation Limited and Stephen John Mead. The appeal pertained to a defamation case where Mr Ivory had sued both respondents for defamation, arising from comments made about him in a professional capacity. The appeal was bifurcated into two general civil appeals, numbers 4059 and 4423 of 2001. The primary legal issues before the Court of Appeal were centred around the procedural aspects of the case, specifically concerning the appellant's compliance with the timetable for the preparation and filing of material, and the application for security of costs.

The Court of Appeal, in its decision, emphasised the importance of adhering to procedural timelines set by the Deputy Registrar Appeals. The court noted that the appellant had not complied with the prescribed timetable for the preparation and filing of material, prompting the Court to issue a directive to the appellant to comply with the timetable. Furthermore, the Court addressed the appellant's application for security of costs, noting that outlines were to be filed by both parties in the usual way. The Court reserved the costs of the hearing and requested a transcript of the proceedings, while also directing that the appellant must show cause for non-compliance with the Deputy Registrar's directions if the appeals were to proceed.

The Court of Appeal ultimately directed that in the event of non-compliance with the timetable and the application for security of costs, the appeals would be listed for hearing on 7 November 2001. The appellant was required to provide evidence in affidavit form to justify any non-compliance and make available any medical practitioners whose opinion was relied upon for cross-examination. The Court's decision underscored the necessity for strict adherence to procedural directives in litigation, particularly in the context of appeals.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established