Perham v Connolly

Case [2004] QCA 51

[2004] QCA 51

COURT OF APPEAL

CRAIG GRANT PERHAM Appellant/Plaintiff
and
DAVID ANTHONY CONNOLLY Respondent/Defendant
BRISBANE
..DATE 27/02/2004

McMURDO P

Appeal No 11167 of 2003

ORDER prosecution. I order that the appeal is stuck out for want of prosecution and that the appellant pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of today's mention to be assessed.

...

THE PRESIDENT: I order the solicitors for the appellant be given leave to withdraw as solicitors on the record, on the basis that they give an undertaking to the Court to file and serve a notice of withdrawal upon the appellant and file that notice in the Court within seven days.

-----

2    ORDER

Details
AGLC
Perham v Connolly [2004] QCA 51
Case
[2004] QCA 51
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Craig Grant Perham sought to appeal a decision of Connolly in the District Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution. This determination hinged on whether Perham had exhibited a sufficient degree of diligence in prosecuting his appeal. The Court considered the appellant's inaction and the resultant delay in the proceedings, ultimately finding a lack of diligence on the part of Perham.

The Court noted that the appeal had been pending for an extended period, with multiple opportunities for Perham to demonstrate his commitment to prosecuting the appeal not being met. The appellant had not taken any substantive steps towards the appeal, and the Court found that this inactivity warranted the dismissal of the appeal. The Court of Appeal considered the principles of legal practice and procedure, particularly the importance of timely and diligent prosecution of appeals, to conclude that the appeal was not being pursued with requisite vigour.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal determined to stick out the appeal for want of prosecution. In addition to dismissing the appeal, the Court ordered Perham to pay the respondent's costs of and incidental to the appeal, including the costs of the mention. The Court also granted leave for the solicitors for the appellant to withdraw from the case, contingent upon them filing and serving a notice of withdrawal within seven days. This decision underscores the importance of procedural diligence in the prosecution of appeals.

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.