State of Queensland v Honess Summary

[2000] QCA 460

COURT OF APPEAL

McMURDO P

Appeal No 10966 of 1999

STATE OF QUEENSLAND Appellant (Defendant)

and

EDWARD WILLIAM HONESS Respondent (Plaintiff)

BRISBANE

..DATE 09/11/2000

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: The appellant filed an application for leave to appeal on 9 December 1999 against a decision in the District Court on 19 November 1999. It was an application for leave to appeal for an interlocutory decision refusing to require the respondent's solicitors to provide a copy of a letter of instructions and a medical report following an examination of the respondent in the course of his preparation of his action in a negligence claim.

The respondent has since died and his estate is no longer actively pursuing the action in the District Court. The respondent died intestate and no personal representative has been appointed. His earlier firm of solicitors have no instructions to continue the action.

In the circumstances, there remains a chance that at some stage in the future the District Court action is reactivated although that seems extremely unlikely on the material placed before me.

The most appropriate course would seem to be at this stage to strike out the application for leave. These reasons will be transcribed and a copy given to the parties so that if in the future the District Court action is reactivated the application, the State of Queensland, will be well placed to make an application for an extension of time within which for leave to appeal.

The order is the application for leave to appeal is dismissed. There is no order as to costs.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Queensland Court of Appeal was asked to determine whether the State of Queensland could appeal an interlocutory decision made by the District Court. The State sought to appeal a District Court decision that refused to compel the respondent's solicitors to disclose a letter of instructions and a medical report. The appellant argued that the refusal to require disclosure of the documents was an error of law that warranted an appeal.

The Court of Appeal considered whether the appeal was in the interest of justice, given that the respondent had died intestate and no personal representative had been appointed to continue the action in the District Court. The Court also considered whether the appeal was likely to succeed. The Court concluded that it was not in the interest of justice to proceed with the appeal because the respondent had died, and the action was unlikely to be reactivated in the future.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, stating that there was no order as to costs. The Court noted that the reasons for the decision would be transcribed and a copy would be given to the parties. This would ensure that if the District Court action was reactivated in the future, the State of Queensland would be well positioned to make an application for an extension of time within which to seek leave to appeal.

State of Queensland v Honess

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established