Meyer and Meyer v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd - [2022] QDC 84

DISTRICT COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Meyer & Meyer v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] QDC 84

PARTIES:

ROLF MEYER & HEIDI MEYER
(Plaintiff)

v

GRACE WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 070 345 845
(Defendant)

FILE NO:

4300/15

DIVISION:

Civil

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Brisbane District Court

DELIVERED ON:

13 April 2022

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 December 2021

JUDGE:

Porter QC DCJ

ORDER:

1. Leave to proceed is refused.

2. The proceedings are dismissed.

CATCHWORDS:

CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDING AFTER DELAY - Where the plaintiff applies to the Court for leave to proceed – Where the proceedings were commenced over 8 years before in the Supreme Court – Whether the plaintiffs have a reasonable explanation for the delay – Whether the plaintiffs are responsible for the delays – Whether the plaintiffs have strong prospects of success at trial – Whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the Court granting the plaintiffs leave to proceed – leave to proceed refused.

CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – Where the plaintiff has taken a step in the proceeding for more than 2 years - Whether there has been a lengthy delay – proceedings dismissed.

COUNSEL:

C. Harding for the applicant/ plaintiff

M. Steele for the respondent/ defendant

SOLICITORS:

Cantwell Lawyers for the applicant/ plaintiff

Norton White for the respondent/ defendant

Summary

The plaintiffs allege that when goods stored in 1986 and 1991 were delivered up by the defendant (Grace) in January 2011, certain paintings were missing, and another was damaged. The plaintiffs commenced proceedings in the Supreme Court over three years later, in May 2014. The proceedings were transferred to this Court in October 2015. As of December 2021, the plaintiffs had not taken a step in the proceedings for over 4 years. They applied for leave to proceed under Rule 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (UCPR). Grace cross applied for the dismissal of the proceedings for want of prosecution. For the reason which follow, leave is refused, and the proceedings are dismissed for want of prosecution.

The issues

The plaintiffs allege that in about April 1986, they entered into a storage contract with Brambles Holdings Ltd or Grace Bros Pty Ltd and then caused, inter alia, four wooden crates of goods to be sent by air from Port Moresby to a storage facility operated by the relevant entity. They allege that in July 1991, they entered into another such contract with Brambles Holdings or Brambles Australia Ltd and then caused three crates and a suitcase to be shipped from Port Moresby to the same storage facility. Together, the stored items are designated “the Goods” in the Amended Statement of Claim (ASOC) and are listed in annexures to the pleading.
They allege they were invoiced monthly by one or more of the contracting entities until August 1995. In August 1995, Grace acquired the storage business of the various entities which operated…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Meyer and Meyer v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2022] QDC 84
Decision Date: 13 April 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Meyer and Meyer v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd involved a legal dispute where the plaintiffs sought to continue their proceedings against the defendant, which had originally been commenced over eight years prior in the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs applied for leave to proceed with their case, arguing that they had a reasonable explanation for the delay and that they had a strong prospect of success at trial. The central issues before the court were whether the plaintiffs could provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, whether they were responsible for the delays, and whether the defendant would be prejudiced if the plaintiffs were allowed to continue with the proceedings.

The court examined the circumstances surrounding the delay and found that the plaintiffs had not provided a reasonable explanation for the significant period of inactivity. It was established that the plaintiffs were responsible for the delays, as they had not acted with due diligence in pursuing their case. Furthermore, the court considered the prospects of success at trial, concluding that the plaintiffs did not have a strong case. Additionally, the court found that the defendant would be prejudiced if the plaintiffs were granted leave to proceed, as the delay had led to the loss of evidence and witness testimony.

As a result, the court refused the plaintiffs leave to proceed with their case. The proceedings were ultimately dismissed for want of prosecution, given that more than two years had passed since the plaintiffs had taken any steps in the matter. The court's decision was based on the combination of an unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, the plaintiffs' responsibility for the delays, weak prospects of success, and the prejudice to the defendant.

The final orders of the court were to refuse the plaintiffs leave to proceed and to dismiss the proceedings. This decision underscores the importance of diligent prosecution of legal claims and the consequences that may arise from prolonged inactivity in court proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Leave to proceed is refused.

2. The proceedings are dismissed.

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.

CITATION:	Meyer & Meyer v Grace Worldwide (Australia) Pty Ltd [2022] QDC 84
PARTIES:	ROLF MEYER & HEIDI MEYER (Plaintiff) v GRACE WORLDWIDE (AUSTRALIA) PTY LTD ACN 070 345 845 (Defendant)
FILE NO:	4300/15
DIVISION:	Civil
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Brisbane District Court
DELIVERED ON:	13 April 2022
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	16 December 2021
JUDGE:	Porter QC DCJ
ORDER:	1. Leave to proceed is refused. 2. The proceedings are dismissed.
CATCHWORDS:	CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – CONTINUATION OF PROCEEDING AFTER DELAY - Where the plaintiff applies to the Court for leave to proceed – Where the proceedings were commenced over 8 years before in the Supreme Court – Whether the plaintiffs have a reasonable explanation for the delay – Whether the plaintiffs are responsible for the delays – Whether the plaintiffs have strong prospects of success at trial – Whether the defendant would be prejudiced by the Court granting the plaintiffs leave to proceed – leave to proceed refused. CIVIL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – DISMISSAL OF PROCEEDING FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION – Where the plaintiff has taken a step in the proceeding for more than 2 years - Whether there has been a lengthy delay – proceedings dismissed.
COUNSEL:	C. Harding for the applicant/ plaintiff M. Steele for the respondent/ defendant
SOLICITORS:	Cantwell Lawyers for the applicant/ plaintiff Norton White for the respondent/ defendant