Sheldrick v Sheldrick

[2020] QCA 208

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO JA

Appeal No 7427 of 2020
DC No 1362 of 2020

DANIEL GARY SHELDRICK Respondent/Applicant

NICKI LEE SHELDRICK Appellant/Respondent

BRISBANE

THURSDAY, 24 SEPTEMBER 2020

JUDGMENT

McMURDO JA: This is an application for the summary dismissal of an appeal against an order of the District Court for the appointment of statutory trustees for sale of a property owned by the applicant and the respondent. They are siblings who inherited the property, and it is currently the appellant’s residence.

When the matter was called this morning, there was no appearance by the appellant, and I am satisfied that the application has been duly notified to her.

The application is made on the basis that the notice of appeal reveals no arguable ground. In such cases, it is often difficult for a party without legal representation to understand that a co-owner has an entitlement to an order of this kind, except in very limited and exceptional circumstances. What is said in the notice of appeal does not indicate that this is such a case.

Further, the appellant has failed to comply with the directions made by the Registrar for an outline of argument and a list of authorities, and there appears to be now no likelihood that those documents will be forthcoming. I have signed a draft order in the terms which I have just described.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Sheldrick v Sheldrick involves an appeal against an order of the District Court for the appointment of statutory trustees to sell a property jointly owned by the parties. The parties, Daniel Gary Sheldrick and Nicki Lee Sheldrick, are siblings who inherited the property, which is currently the residence of Nicki. The appeal was heard in the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Nicki, did not appear on the day of the hearing, but the court accepted that she had been properly notified of the proceedings.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the appeal had any arguable grounds for success. The court examined the notice of appeal to determine if it contained any grounds that could challenge the District Court's decision. The court also considered whether the appellant had complied with the directions issued by the Registrar, which required her to provide an outline of her argument and a list of authorities. The appellant had failed to submit these documents, and it appeared unlikely that she would do so.

The court found that the notice of appeal did not provide any arguable grounds for appeal, and the appellant had not complied with the procedural requirements set out by the Registrar. The court determined that, except in very limited and exceptional circumstances, a co-owner does not have an entitlement to the appointment of statutory trustees for sale. The court concluded that the appeal had no reasonable prospects of success and dismissed it.

The court signed a draft order dismissing the appeal and made no other orders. The judgment highlights the importance of ensuring that appeals are properly grounded in arguable legal issues and that procedural requirements are met to avoid summary dismissal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established