T G Wright Management Services P/L (in liq) v Edwards Summary

[2003] QCA 322

COURT OF APPEAL

WILLIAMS JA

Appeal No 3122 of 2002

TOMMY EDWARDS	Respondent/Plaintiff
and
T G WRIGHT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQ)
ACN 081 642 480	Appellant/First Defendant
and
THOMAS GUY WRIGHT	Not party to appeal/Second Defendant
and
ALEX SOKOLOVSKI	Not party to appeal/Third Defendant
Appeal No 9146 of 2002
ESTATE OF T G WRIGHT	Fifth Respondent/Fifth Respondent
and
A FORDYCE TRUST IN BANKRUPT ESTATE OF A SOKOLOVSKI	Sixth Respondent/Sixth Respondent
BRISBANE ..DATE 25/07/2003
TOMMY EDWARDS	Appellant/Applicant
and
T G WRIGHT MANAGEMENT
SERVICES PTY LTD (IN LIQ)
ACN 081 642 480	First Respondent/First Respondent
and
THOMAS GUY WRIGHT	Second Respondent/Second Respondent
and
ALEX SOKOLOVSKI	Third Respondent/Third Respondent
and
D McVEIGH ADMIN FOR T G
WRIGHT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
PTY LTD	Fourth Respondent/Fourth Respondent
and
P MORRIS TRUSTEE OF BANKRUPT

JUDGMENT appellant via telephone link

JUDGMENT

MR A M DAUBNEY SC (instructed by Mill Harris & Co) for the respondents

WILLIAMS JA: The notice of appeal in Appeal No 9146 of 2002 was filed on the 3rd of October 2002. Because the appellant had taken no steps to promote the appeal the matter was listed

for mention before the President on the 23rd of May 2003. She
then gave various directions and steps were put in train to
have the matter listed for hearing before this Court on the
18th of August 2003.

The appellant failed to comply with the directions given by the President and the matter was then further listed for mention before me on the 11th of July 2003. On that occasion the appellant was represented by Mr Edwards Junior who appeared on his father's behalf. He then assured me that the outline and appeal book would be filed by today's date, the 25th of July 2003, and on that basis I gave directions to that effect.

Those directions have not been complied with and I am not satisfied that the appellants have shown any sufficient reason for failing to comply with directions over a lengthy period of time.

In consequence I order that Appeal No 9146 of 2002 be struck
out for want of prosecution.
...

JUDGMENT

WILLIAMS JA: The order will be Appeal No 9146 of 2002 is struck out with costs and the other matter (3122 of 2002) will remain on the Court list at this stage.

-----

4 JUDGMENT

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This case involves an appeal against a decision in the Brisbane District Court where Tommy Edwards sought an order for the winding up of T G Wright Management Services P/L. The appeal was lodged by the liquidator of the company, T G Wright Management Services P/L, against the District Court's decision. The Court of Appeal was required to determine whether the appeal was properly filed and prosecuted, and if not, whether it should be dismissed.

The legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant had complied with the procedural requirements necessary to maintain the appeal. Specifically, the Court needed to consider if the appellant had taken sufficient steps to promote the appeal within the required timeframes and whether there were any valid reasons for the delay. The Court was also tasked with deciding the appropriate consequences for the failure to comply with the Court's directions.

In its judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the appellant had not taken sufficient steps to promote the appeal over a lengthy period. Despite multiple directions and opportunities to file the necessary documents, the appellant failed to comply with the Court's instructions. The Court held that the appellant had not shown any valid reason for the delay and concluded that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution. The Court ordered that the appeal be struck out and that costs be awarded against the appellant.

The Court of Appeal struck out Appeal No 9146 of 2002 for want of prosecution and ordered that the appellant pay the costs of the appeal. The other matter, Appeal No 3122 of 2002, remained on the Court's list pending further determination.

T G Wright Management Services P/L (in liq) v Edwards

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established