Jambere Pty Ltd (ACN 164 765 520), Janine Michelle Ritchie and David Ian Thompson v Body in Balance Chiropractic Pty Ltd (ABN 120 371 897) and Bianca Jane Beaumont

The respondents, Jambere Pty Ltd, Janine Michelle Ritchie, and David Ian Thompson, brought proceedings against the applicants, Body in Balance Chiropractic Pty Ltd and Bianca Jane Beaumont, in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondents sought various remedies including damages, an account of profits, and an injunction. The applicants initially applied for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal, but they failed to file the leave application book by the required deadline. They subsequently proposed an expedited listing for the leave application, but this was withdrawn due to its inconvenience. The applicants later misunderstood the due date for filing the leave application book, leading to a further delay. The respondents applied for an order that the application for leave to appeal be taken not to be taken, arguing that the applicants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to file the leave application book by the due date. The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants' failure to file the leave application book by the due date, and the subsequent misunderstanding of the due date, justified the respondents' application, and whether any prejudice that might result could later be compensated by an appropriate order for costs and interest.

The court held that the applicants' failure to file the leave application book by the due date, and the subsequent misunderstanding of the due date, amounted to an unacceptable delay and warranted the respondents' application. The court found that the applicants had not provided a satisfactory explanation for their failure to file the leave application book by the due date, and that the subsequent misunderstanding of the due date did not excuse their failure. The court also held that the prejudice that might result from the applicants' failure to file the leave application book by the due date could not be compensated by an appropriate order for costs and interest. The court noted that the applicants' failure to file the leave application book by the due date had already caused significant delay and prejudice to the respondents, and that any further delay would only exacerbate the situation. The court held that the respondents' application should be granted, and that the application for leave to appeal be taken not to be taken.

The court ordered that the application for leave to appeal be taken not to be taken. The court further ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application on an indemnity basis. The court held that the applicants' failure to file the leave application book by the due date, and the subsequent misunderstanding of the due date, justified the respondents' application, and that the prejudice that might result could not be compensated by an appropriate order for costs and interest. The court held that the applicants' failure to file the leave application book by the due date had already caused significant delay and prejudice to the respondents, and that any further delay would only exacerbate the situation. The court held that the respondents' application should be granted, and that the application for leave to appeal be taken not to be taken. The court further ordered that the applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application on an indemnity basis.