Merrin v Cairns Port Authority

[2006] QCA 469

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 4851 of 2006

ANNETTE ELIZABETH MERRIN	Appellant/Plaintiff
and
THOMAS WILLIAM MERRIN	Appellant/Plaintiff

and

CAIRNS PORT AUTHORITY                 Respondent/Defendant

and

GUTTERIDGE HASKINS & DAVEY PTY LTD     Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

and

MARPRO (AUST) PTY LTD                 Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

and

PAUL MATTHEWS  Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

and

PACIFIC MARINA DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD     Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

and

SINCLAIR KNIGHT MERZ PTY LTD           Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

and

STATE OF QUEENSLAND                   Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

and

THOR EARTHMOVERS PTY LTD              Not a party to the
  Appeal/Third Party

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/11/2006

ORDER

No Appearance for or on behalf of Appellant

MR M P AMERENA (instructed by MacDonnells) for the respondent

THE PRESIDENT:  This appeal arises from a decision in the Cairns District Court and an order there of 16 May 2006.  The notice of appeal was filed on 13 June 2006.  The grounds of appeal primarily allege bias on the part of the trial judge. 

The Deputy Registrar (Appeals) in accordance with the usual practice and this Court's practice directions prepared a timetable applicable to both parties for the preparation of the appeal for hearing.  The appellants were directed to file and serve their outline by 4 July 2006 by a letter from the Deputy Registrar to the appellants of 13 June 2006.  That time was extended to 22 September 2006.  Then a further direction was given when that was not complied with that the appellants provide their outline of argument and draft index by 11 October 2006 and the appellants were informed that if that was not done the appeal would be mentioned before me for directions.

The appellants failed to comply with any of the Deputy Registrar's directions and the matter was listed before me for further directions on 13 October 2006.  At that time the appellants did not appear although they had been informed of the mention before me. 

I made a number of orders including an order that the appellants' outline of argument be filed and served by 31 October 2006.  At that time I also ordered that if the orders I made were not complied with the Deputy Registrar was to again mention the matter before me.  The Deputy Registrar wrote to the appellants on 1 November 2006 informing them that they had not complied with the order of the Court and telling them the matter would be listed at 9.30 a.m. this morning and that they are required to appear.

They have not appeared again and they have consistently failed to comply with the directions of the Court and the directions of the Registrar in the progression of this appeal.  It can only be assumed from their conduct that they do not wish to prosecute this appeal in a timely fashion, if at all.  In the circumstances they have had every opportunity to explain any good reason they might have for their tardiness in the progression of this matter but they have not.

I am satisfied that this appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

I order accordingly that this appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution with costs of and incidental to the appeal.

‑‑‑‑‑