[2003] QCA 61
COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
Appeal No 9910 of 2002
SOHAIL LAGHAIFAR Appellant/First Plaintiff
and
FARZAD NOORAVI and HOMA NOORAVI Respondent/Defendant
Appeal No 9909 of 2002
SOHAIL LAGHAIFAR Appellant/First Plaintiff
and
IAN DAVID JESSUP AS LIQUIDATOR OF
A RUNOUT MORTGAGE BUSINESS RUN BY
MORTGAGES NORTH PTY LTD Respondent/Defendant
BRISBANE
..DATE 21/02/2003
ORDER
THE PRESIDENT: Both these appeals were filed on the 29th October 2002. The appellant has been dilatory in progressing the appeal. The undertaking about the record books were due on the 5th of November, but were not filed until the 8th of November.
The appellant's outline was due on the 19th of November and it was not filed until the 25th of November, or it was not filed, rather even by the 25th of November. An extension was granted until the 16th of December and it was filed the next day. The settled index was due on the 7th of January 2003, and that is really the significant matter here. It has still not been received, despite two letters from the registry. And so, both the settled index and the record book are overdue.
...
THE PRESIDENT: I order the settled index be filed and served within seven days, and that the record book be prepared and filed within 14 days of the filing of the settled index. In the event of non-compliance with this order, the matter is to be listed before me at a date to be fixed by the Registrar to show cause why the matter should not be struck out, for want of prosecution.
I order the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to this mention. That is the order in respect of both appeals in respect of Mr Laghaifar.
-----
- AGLC
- Laghaifar v Nooravi [2003] QCA 61
- Case
- [2003] QCA 61
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court was required to consider whether Laghaifar had complied with the procedural requirements of the Court of Appeal, specifically the timely filing of the settled index and the record book. Additionally, the court had to determine if the appellant's delays warranted the dismissal of his appeals under the Court of Appeal's rules regarding prosecution of appeals.
The Court of Appeal found that Laghaifar had not met the required deadlines for filing the settled index and record book, despite being granted extensions. The Court held that the appellant's dilatory conduct warranted the imposition of costs and further orders to ensure compliance with procedural deadlines. The Court ordered that the settled index and record book be filed within specified timeframes, with a warning that failure to comply would result in the appeals being struck out.
Consequently, the Court ordered Laghaifar to pay the respondents' costs of and incidental to the mention and warned him of the potential consequences of non-compliance with the orders regarding the filing of the settled index and record book. The appeals were thus subject to these conditions and potential consequences.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.