Playford v Go to Court Pty Ltd

[2014] FCA 1361

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Playford v Go To Court Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1361

Citation:	Playford v Go To Court Pty Ltd [2014] FCA 1361
Appeal from:	Playford v Go To Court Pty Ltd & Ors [2014] FCCA 2501
Parties:	MATTHEW WILLIAM PLAYFORD v GO TO COURT PTY LTD ACN 145 818 828, GO TO COURT FRANCHISING PTY LTD ACN 148 818 828, GTC PARTNERS PTY LTD ACN 151 145 158 and JAMES TERENCE ALEXANDER STEVENS
File number:	QUD 577 of 2014
Judge:	LOGAN J
Date of judgment:	8 December 2014
Catchwords:	PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – appeals and related – failure to comply with interlocutory orders of the Court – failure to appear or to file and serve notice of appeal as directed – failure to prosecute the appeal
Date of hearing:	8 December 2014
Place:	Brisbane (via video-link to Adelaide)
Division:	GENERAL DIVISION
Category:	Catchwords
Number of paragraphs:	9
Counsel for the Appellant:	The Appellant did not appear
Counsel for the Respondents:	Ms KA Gothard (conditional appearance)
Solicitor for the Respondents:	All Courts Lawyers

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 577 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MATTHEW WILLIAM PLAYFORD
Appellant

AND:

GO TO COURT PTY LTD ACN 145 818 828
First Respondent

GO TO COURT FRANCHISING PTY LTD ACN 148 818 828
Second Respondent

GTC PARTNERS PTY LTD ACN 151 145 158
Third Respondent

JAMES TERENCE ALEXANDER STEVENS
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE OF ORDER:	8 DECEMBER 2014
WHERE MADE:	BRISBANE (VIA VIDEO-LINK TO ADELAIDE)

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
QUEENSLAND DISTRICT REGISTRY
GENERAL DIVISION	QUD 577 of 2014

ON APPEAL FROM THE FEDERAL CIRCUIT COURT OF AUSTRALIA

BETWEEN:

MATTHEW WILLIAM PLAYFORD
Appellant

AND:

GO TO COURT PTY LTD ACN 145 818 828
First Respondent

GO TO COURT FRANCHISING PTY LTD ACN 148 818 828
Second Respondent

GTC PARTNERS PTY LTD ACN 151 145 158
Third Respondent

JAMES TERENCE ALEXANDER STEVENS
Fourth Respondent

JUDGE:	LOGAN J
DATE:	8 DECEMBER 2014
PLACE:	BRISBANE (VIA VIDEO-LINK TO ADELAIDE)

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This matter was last before the Court on 24 November 2014.  At that time directions were made which required the appellant to serve the notice of appeal on the respondents not later than 3 December 2014.  There was also a requirement that the appellant file an affidavit of service not later than 5 December 2014.

2. Also by direction made on 24 November 2014, the appeal was listed for directions today at 9.30am Brisbane time.  It was part of that listing direction that appearance by video link was permitted, providing a link was available.  It was expressly stated in the order that appearance by telephone was not permitted.

3. Another direction made on 24 November 2014 was that the registrar was required to send a copy of the Court’s order forthwith to the appellant and to his trustee in bankruptcy by email and prepaid post.  I note that has been done.

4. It was further directed on 24 November 2014 that, in default by the appellant of compliance with any of the directions, he was to show cause today at 9.30am as to why his appeal should not be dismissed for want of prosecution.

5. I have been informed by the bar table by an appearance made out of courtesy and necessarily conditionally on behalf of the respondents, that no service has been effected.

6. There has been no appearance by or on behalf of the appellant today, notwithstanding the terms of the order made on 24 November 2014.  The appellant did last week seek to appear by telephone.  That was refused.  He stated that he was granted leave to appear by telephone in the Federal Circuit Court hearing before his annulment application. He asked that he be permitted to appear by telephone for the purposes of this appeal.  He also stated that he worked in country South Australia during the week.

7. The long and the short of it is it was made clear by court order made on 24 November 2014, and that following a failure by the appellant to appear that day, that a telephone appearance was not permitted.  My experience in respect of cases involving litigants in person is that the formality of a court proceeding, and the fact that it is a court proceeding at all, is more often than not lost on litigants in person where telephone appearance is permitted.

8. Further, the nature of this case was such that a telephone appearance in relation to the detail required for programming and getting ready an appeal, and also having regard to the complication that the appellant is bankrupt, was never an option that was workable.

9. The appellant has chosen, for his own reasons, to seek to arrogate to himself a method of appearing that has not been permitted.  In the face of the order made he should have appeared today.  He did not.  The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution. 

I certify that the preceding nine (9) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Logan.

Associate:

Dated:       16 December 2014