Schokman v Hogg

[2002] QCA 317

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 4111 of 2002

VINCE SCHOKMAN and
CAROL SCHOKMAN Appellants

and

EARLE RAYMOND HOGG Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 23/08/2002

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: This appeal was filed on the 8th of May 2002. The settled index and the record book are now overdue. The appellants have requested that the appeal be placed in abeyance pending a determination as to whether the arbitration about which this appeal is connected is to proceed.

The respondent argues that the appeal should be struck out. Although the appellant has not proceeded diligently in progressing the appeal, the appeal is not yet stale. As I have said to the appellant's legal representative a decision must be made within the next few weeks as to whether the appeal is to be progressed or whether it is to be abandoned.

In the circumstances I am prepared to adjourn the matter. I order that the matter is adjourned for further mention in about four weeks time, the date and time to be advised by the registry. The costs of today's hearing are reserved.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Schokman v Hogg involves an appeal brought by Vince Schokman and Carol Schokman, the appellants, against the decision of the respondent, Earle Raymond Hogg. The nature of the dispute concerns an arbitration process which was initially conducted, and the appellants are seeking to appeal the outcome of that arbitration. The matter was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appeal should be struck out due to the appellants' failure to proceed diligently, as argued by the respondent. Additionally, the Court had to consider the appellants' request to place the appeal in abeyance pending a determination regarding the continuation of the underlying arbitration. The appellants contended that despite their lack of diligence, the appeal was not yet stale and required a decision within a short timeframe.

The Court of Appeal, presided over by McMurdo P, determined that while the appellants had not proceeded with the necessary diligence, the appeal was not yet stale. The Court acknowledged the urgency of the matter and the need for a prompt decision on whether to proceed with the appeal or abandon it. In light of these considerations, the Court opted to adjourn the matter for further mention, giving the appellants time to decide whether to progress the appeal or abandon it. The costs of the hearing were reserved for later determination.

This case highlights the importance of procedural diligence in legal proceedings, particularly in the context of appeals. The Court's decision to adjourn the matter underscores the need for timely decisions and the potential consequences of inaction, while also recognising the urgency of the situation.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established