LEIGHTON -v- GARNHAM [No 4] [2016] WASC 134
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2016] WASC 134 | |
| Case No: | CIV:1590/2012 | 1 & 15 APRIL 2016 | |
| Coram: | LE MIERE J | 29/04/16 | |
| 31 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Plaintiff's action is dismissed for want of prosecution | ||
| A | |||
| PDF Version |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
- IN CHAMBERS
- Plaintiff
AND
CLIVE GARNHAM
First Defendant
ROBERT JOHN VLETTER
Second Defendant
JANE CHRISTINE GENOVESE
Third Defendant
Catchwords:
Overturning prior decision of same judge - Whether prior decision clearly or plainly wrong - Part of decision in Timcal overturned
Inactive Cases List - Content of O 4A r 25 notice - Effect of failure to give notice on operation of O 4A r 28 - Six months not elapsed since notice given - Turns on own…
Continue reading Leighton v Garnham [No 4]
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- Leighton v Garnham [No 4] [2016] WASC 134
- Case
- [2016] WASC 134
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Leighton v Garnham, the plaintiff sought to overturn a previous decision made by the same judge. The nature of the dispute involved the overturning of a prior decision, the content of a notice under O 4A r 25, and the effect of failing to give such a notice on the operation of O 4A r 28. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the prior decision was clearly or plainly wrong, whether part of the decision in Timcal had been overturned, and the guidelines to consider in the exercise of the court's discretion in dismissing an action for want of prosecution.
The court considered the case on its own facts, determining that the prior decision was not clearly or plainly wrong and that part of the decision in Timcal had not been overturned. The court found that the content of the O 4A r 25 notice was not relevant as the six months had not elapsed since the notice was given. The court also considered the guidelines to be applied in the exercise of its discretion to dismiss an action for want of prosecution, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prejudice caused to the defendant, and the prospects of success of the plaintiff's case. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff's action should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's action was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prosecute the action diligently and that the delay had caused prejudice to the defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient reasons for the delay and that the prospects of success of the plaintiff's case were slim. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action, turning on the facts of the case.
The court considered the case on its own facts, determining that the prior decision was not clearly or plainly wrong and that part of the decision in Timcal had not been overturned. The court found that the content of the O 4A r 25 notice was not relevant as the six months had not elapsed since the notice was given. The court also considered the guidelines to be applied in the exercise of its discretion to dismiss an action for want of prosecution, including the length of the delay, the reasons for the delay, the prejudice caused to the defendant, and the prospects of success of the plaintiff's case. The court ultimately determined that the plaintiff's action should be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's action was dismissed for want of prosecution. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to prosecute the action diligently and that the delay had caused prejudice to the defendant. The court also found that the plaintiff had not provided sufficient reasons for the delay and that the prospects of success of the plaintiff's case were slim. The court exercised its inherent jurisdiction to dismiss the action, turning on the facts of the case.
Orders
Orders of the court
Plaintiff's action is dismissed for want of prosecution
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.