Re Tudehope

[2003] QCA 290

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA

A MATTER FOR MENTION

(RE: TUDEHOPE)

BRISBANE

. .DATE 11/07/2003

ORDER

WILLIAMS JA: Mr Tudehope sought to file an application for leave to appeal to the Court. It was rejected by the registrar on the basis that it was not a viable notice of appeal. Mr Tudehope was not prepared to accept that ruling. In consequence I gave a direction that the registrar refer the matter to a Judge of the Court of Appeal sitting in open Court to receive submissions from Mr Tudehope as to why the application should be filed in the Court.

The matter was listed at 9:45 this morning. Mr Tudehope was given due notice of that. He elected to appear by telephone link from Cairns. When the matter was called on Mr Tudehope
indicated that he was not prepared to make submissions as to why the documents should be filed and sought to challenge whether or not this was a sittings of the Court. In consequence of his abusive attitude I terminated the telephone link and have recorded these reasons. I again record that the document, as it exists, is not a viable notice of appeal and at this stage there is no ground on which the registrar should accept for filing the document in question.

…

WILLIAMS JA: I will direct that a copy of the reasons that I gave be made available on request to the Crown solicitor and to your solicitors, Mr Davis, and if there is any further

proceeding they can be referred to.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involves Mr Tudehope, who sought to file an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The registrar rejected the application, deeming it not a viable notice of appeal. Mr Tudehope contested this decision, prompting the court to refer the matter to a Judge of the Court of Appeal for further submissions. The matter was subsequently heard with Mr Tudehope participating via telephone from Cairns. However, Mr Tudehope refused to make any submissions regarding the filing of the documents and challenged the validity of the court sitting, leading to the termination of the telephone link.

The central legal issue revolved around the viability of Mr Tudehope's application as a notice of appeal. The registrar's initial rejection was based on the insufficiency of the application as a notice of appeal. Mr Tudehope's refusal to provide further submissions compounded the problem. The court had to determine whether the application met the criteria for a viable notice of appeal and if there were any grounds for the registrar to accept the filing of the document.

In delivering the reasons, Williams JA reiterated that the application, in its current form, did not constitute a viable notice of appeal. The court noted Mr Tudehope's uncooperative attitude during the proceedings, which further undermined any chance of a successful appeal. The judge made it clear that there were no grounds at that stage for the registrar to accept the filing of the document. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to procedural requirements and the court's authority to manage uncooperative conduct during proceedings.

The final orders made it clear that the application was not accepted, and a copy of the reasons would be made available to the relevant parties. Any further proceedings would be subject to the court's discretion and could be referred back for consideration if additional information or arguments were presented.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established