Lather v Gregory & Carl as executors of estate of Gladys (dec'd)

[2003] QCA 452

STEPHEN PAUL LATHER	Appellant/Defendant
and
ROBERT SCOTT GREGORY AND KEITH JAMES	Respondent/Plaintiff
CARL AS EXECUTORS OF THE ESTATE OF SYLVIA GLADYS (DECEASED)
BRISBANE ..DATE 17/10/2003

[2003] QCA 452

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 6639 of 2003

JUDGMENT year and is set down for hearing on the 18th of November 2003.

The appellant is a solicitor of this Court. The appeal has

not progressed in a timely fashion. The outline which was due	10
on the 18th of August 2003 was not filed until the 26th of the appellant on the 21st of August and the 26th of August.
The original timetable for the record book was in accordance	20
with the standard times under the Practice Direction. They
were shortened due to the early hearing date set for the
appeal. On the 20th of August 2003, the Registry advised the
appellant and respondent of the new record book timetable,
namely that the settled index was to be filed and served by	30
the 30th of September 2003 and the record book by the 13th of October 2003. No index or obviously record book has yet been received by the Registry.
Since the appellant filed his outline on the 26th of August	40
2003, the only contact between him and the Registry was on the 13th of October when he called to advise that the appeal was unlikely to proceed.
That telephone communication followed two letters sent by the	50
Registry; firstly on the 6th of October 2003 that the Senior
Deputy Registrar wrote to the appellant reminding him that the appeal was listed for hearing on the 18th of November and that he had not complied with the requirements for the settled

2   60

index and the record book which was required to be lodged
forthwith. The letter informed the appellant that failure to
do so would result in the appeal being listed for mention at
which time the appeal may be struck out for non-compliance

with the Court's Practice Direction.	10
It also observed that where an appeal is listed for mention, it is common practice for an order to be made against the non- compliant party.
20
A further letter was sent on the 10th of October 2003 from the
Senior Deputy Registrar to the appellant, again reminding him
of non-compliance with the settled index as required by the
Practice Direction and informing him that the appeal had been
listed for mention at 9.30 a.m. today at which time he was	30
required to attend and show cause why the appeal should not be struck out for want of prosecution.
He has not appeared today and has not contacted the Registry
in any way since that communication on the 13th of October.	40
...
THE PRESIDENT: In all the circumstances which I have set out
earlier in these proceedings, the appropriate orders are that	50
the appeal be struck out for want of prosecution with costs to be assessed.

-----

3   60