SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [2015] WASCA 65

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2015] WASCA 65
Court:	THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)	Published:	30/03/2015
Case No:	CACV:145/2014	Heard:	19 MARCH 2015
Coram:	BUSS JA NEWNES JA	Delivered:	19/03/15
No of pages:	4	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Order that appeal be dismissed unless appellant files and serves appellant's case by 4.00 pm on 2 April 2015
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS SUDA LTD
Catchwords:	Practice and procedure Application for order that appeal be dismissed for failure to file appellant's case Obligation to comply with time limits Springing order made
Legislation:	Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) r 43(2)(g)(ii)
Case References:	Sims v Jooste (No 2) [2014] WASC 373 Sims v Jooste [2013] WASCA 245 Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WADC 161 Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WADC 7 Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WASCA 113 Suda Ltd v Sims [2014] WASC 376

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [2015] WASCA 65 CORAM : BUSS JA

NEWNES JA

HEARD : 19 MARCH 2015 DELIVERED : 19 MARCH 2015 PUBLISHED : 30 MARCH 2015 FILE NO/S : CACV 145 of 2014 BETWEEN : DOUGLAS ARTHUR SIMS

Appellant

AND

SUDA LTD

Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:

Jurisdiction : DISTRICT COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Coram : DAVIS DCJ

Citation : SIMS -v- SUDA LTD [2014] WADC 161

File No : CIV 3938 of 2012

Catchwords:

Practice and procedure - Application for order that appeal be dismissed for failure to file appellant's case - Obligation to comply with time limits - Springing order made

Legislation:

Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) r 43(2)(g)(ii)

Result:

Order that appeal be dismissed unless appellant files and serves appellant's case by 4.00 pm on 2 April 2015

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Mr N C Ebbs

Solicitors:

Appellant : In person

Respondent : Bennett + Co

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Sims v Jooste (No 2) [2014] WASC 373
Sims v Jooste [2013] WASCA 245
Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WADC 161
Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WADC 7
Sims v Suda Ltd [2014] WASCA 113
Suda Ltd v Sims [2014] WASC 376

1 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: On 10 February 2015, the respondent applied for an order that the appeal be dismissed pursuant to r 43(2)(g)(ii) of the Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA) (Court of Appeal Rules) on the ground that the appellant had failed to file the appellant's case as required by r 32 of the Court of Appeal Rules.

2 At the hearing of the application on 19 March 2015 we ordered that the appeal be dismissed and the appellant pay the respondent's costs of the appeal (including any reserved costs) to be taxed unless the appellant files and serves the appellant's case by 4.00 pm on 2 April 2015. We said…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Sims v Suda Ltd

Details

AGLC: Sims v Suda Ltd [2015] WASCA 65
Case: [2015] WASCA 65
Decision Date: 30 MARCH 2015

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Sims, the respondent, sought an order that an appeal by Suda Ltd, the appellant, be dismissed for the appellant's failure to file and serve their case within the prescribed time. The matter involved the enforcement of procedural rules concerning appeals in the Federal Court, particularly those related to the timely filing of an appellant's case. The court was asked to determine whether the appellant had complied with the requisite time limits and to decide on the appropriate course of action if the appellant had not.

The central legal issues before the court were whether the appellant had indeed failed to meet the specified deadlines and what consequences should follow from such a failure. The court needed to balance the strict enforcement of procedural rules with the principles of fairness and justice. Specifically, it had to consider whether a dismissal of the appeal was the appropriate remedy and whether any leeway could be afforded to the appellant to remedy the delay.

The court held that the appellant had indeed failed to adhere to the time limits set out in the procedural rules. It concluded that while the rules must be strictly enforced, the imposition of a dismissal was a serious matter that required careful consideration. The court decided to grant a springing order, meaning the appeal would be dismissed unless the appellant filed and served their case by a specified time. This decision aimed to give the appellant an opportunity to comply with the rules and avoid the harsh consequence of dismissal. The court's reasoning demonstrated a cautious approach, seeking to balance the procedural requirements with the need for justice and fairness.

The final order of the court was that the appeal would be dismissed unless the appellant filed and served their case by 4:00 pm on 2 April 2015. This ruling provided a clear directive to the appellant, setting a firm deadline for compliance and outlining the consequences of failing to meet this deadline.

Orders

Orders of the court

Order that appeal be dismissed unless appellant files and serves appellant's case by 4.00 pm on 2 April 2015

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.