R v Ly

[2001] QCA 360

COURT OF APPEAL

THOMAS JA
WILLIAMS JA
WHITE J

CA No 107 of 2001

THE QUEEN

LINH THI LY (Applicant)

BRISBANE

..DATE 03/09/2001

ORDER

THOMAS JA: Although the matter is not absolutely certain I am satisfied that the applicant must have received information that the present matter would be on for hearing today and that she has not appeared. There is material on the Court file that suggests that two notices in relation to the hearing were sent to her at the Corrective Services address with which she is apparently in close contact. She has also been served with the Crown outline of argument, with material indicating the date of hearing.

In these circumstances I would be prepared to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. If my conclusion is wrong, of course, she can apply to set aside the order.

WILLIAMS JA: Yes, I agree that the application should be dismissed.

WHITE J: I agree also that it should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

THOMAS JA: The order of the Court is, application dismissed.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of R v Ly, the applicant, Linh Thi Ly, sought to appeal a decision made by a lower court. The matter was before the Queensland Court of Appeal, comprising Thomas JA, Williams JA, and White JCA. The primary issue before the Court was whether the applicant had diligently pursued her appeal, given that she had failed to appear for the scheduled hearing. The Court was tasked with determining whether the application should be dismissed due to the applicant's lack of prosecution.

The Court considered whether Ly had received adequate notice of the hearing and whether she had failed to take appropriate action in response. Evidence suggested that Ly had been served with notices and the Crown's outline of argument, indicating the hearing date. Despite this, she did not attend the hearing. The Court concluded that it was likely Ly had received information about the hearing and had chosen not to appear. Therefore, the Court found that the applicant had not diligently pursued her appeal.

Given the findings, the Court decided to dismiss the application for want of prosecution. The unanimous decision of Thomas JA, Williams JA, and White JCA was that the application should be dismissed, as the applicant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in pursuing her appeal. Consequently, the order of the Court was that the application was dismissed.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established