Swettenham v Wild Summary

COURT OF APPEAL [2005] QCA 182

McMURDO P

Appeal No 11135 of 2004

LEONARD THOMAS GEORGE SWETTENHAM Appellant/Plaintiff

and

ROSE-MARIE BEVERLEY WILD Respondent/Defendant

BRISBANE

..DATE 27/05/2005

ORDER

THE PRESIDENT: Mr Pope asks for an adjournment of this matter which is listed for hearing in June. He appears for the respondent. The appeal was filed on the 21st of December last year against an order of a judge of the trial division of the 29th of November 2004.

The matter is listed for hearing on the 1st of June 2005. Some months ago on the 15th of March 2005 it seems that, through administrative error on the part of the respondent's solicitor, Mr Pope was not notified of the hearing date and only became aware of it on Monday of this week and he will be overseas at the time the matter is listed for hearing. He asks for an adjournment of the matter because he is familiar with the case and his clients will be put to additional expense if another counsel is to be briefed.

The matter does not look particularly complex. I am confident that if fresh counsel are briefed at this stage they will be able to prepare the matter in time. The adjournment is opposed although the appellant cannot point to any particular prejudice if the matter were delisted and re-listed at the next available hearing in about three months time.

The appellant is, however, 82 years old. The matter is a family dispute. It must be in the interests of all concerned to have the appeal finalised as soon as possible. The additional expense to the respondent in briefing another counsel would probably be offset in any case by the inevitable order were the matter to be adjourned that the applicant/respondent would have to pay the costs of the respondent/appellant thrown away by the adjournment.

In the circumstances I refuse the application for an adjournment.

...

And I further order that the applicant/respondent pay the respondent/appellant's costs of today's hearing.

‑‑‑‑‑

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Swettenham v Wild was an appeal heard by the Queensland Court of Appeal. The appellant, Leonard Thomas George Swettenham, sought to overturn an order made by the trial division, which was represented by the respondent, Rose-Marie Beverley Wild. The dispute between the parties originated from a family matter, and the appeal was filed on 21 December 2004, challenging the order issued on 29 November 2004.

The legal issues before the court centred on the respondent’s request for an adjournment of the appeal hearing, which was initially scheduled for 1 June 2005. The respondent's counsel, Mr. Pope, argued for an adjournment due to administrative errors that resulted in a late notification of the hearing date, leaving him insufficient time to prepare, especially since he would be overseas during the hearing. The appellant opposed the adjournment, citing the advanced age of the appellant and the desire to conclude the family dispute expeditiously. The court had to balance the inconvenience and potential costs to the parties against the need for a fair hearing and the efficient administration of justice.

The Court of Appeal rejected the application for an adjournment, reasoning that the matter did not appear complex and that fresh counsel could adequately prepare in time for the scheduled hearing date. The court emphasized the importance of finalising the appeal promptly, particularly in the context of a family dispute, and noted that the costs incurred by the appellant due to the adjournment would likely be compensated by an order for the respondent to pay the appellant's costs. Consequently, the appeal proceeded as scheduled, and the respondent was ordered to pay the appellant's costs for the hearing.

Swettenham v Wild

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established