JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION: THORP -v- HUDSON [No 2] [2022] WASCA 76
CORAM: MURPHY JA
MITCHELL JA
VAUGHAN JA
HEARD: 24 JUNE 2022
DELIVERED : 24 JUNE 2022
PUBLISHED : 27 JUNE 2022
FILE NO/S: CACV 5 of 2020
CACV 90 of 2020
BETWEEN: DOUGLAS HENRY ALBERT THORP
Appellant
AND
PAUL DOUGLAS HUDSON
Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram: MASTER SANDERSON
Citation: NATIONAL AUSTRALIA BANK LIMITED -v- THORP [2019] WASC 394
File Number : CIV 1515 of 2019
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Late applications to vacate appeal hearings - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, r 4B
Result:
Applications dismissed
Representation:
Counsel:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | No appearance |
Solicitors:
| Appellant | : | In person |
| Respondent | : | No appearance |
Case(s) referred to in decision(s):
Nil
REASONS OF THE COURT:
The appellant, Mr Thorp, applied by two applications in an appeal dated 23 June 2022 to vacate the appeal hearings in appeals CACV/5/2020 and CACV/90/2020.
The applications to vacate were supported by Mr Thorp's affidavit sworn 23 June 2022.
Relevantly, Mr Thorp deposed that he had, for some time, been in receipt of medical attention in regard to a serious cardiac condition that required surgery and ongoing recovery. The nature of the cardiac condition was unspecified. In attachment 'DT-1' to the affidavit Mr Thorp disclosed that he has been taking cardiac medications since September 2020. Accordingly, we infer that Mr Thorp's cardiac condition manifested by at least September 2020 - nearly two years ago. Mr Thorp's affidavit also referred to a medical certificate from a Dr Wong of Westminster Medical Clinic. That certificate is attachment 'DT-2' to the affidavit. Dr Wong, a general practitioner, certified that Mr Thorp has been affected by his heart failure with difficulty concentrating and feeling malaise. Dr Wong said that Mr Thorp will be unfit to attend to any aspect of his court case from 23 June 2022 to 23 September 2022. However, in his affidavit Mr Thorp sought more than a three‑month adjournment - asserting that he should be well enough within the next six months.
Mr Thorp said that he was not in a position to proceed with the appeals and had not been able to obtain legal representation. Mr Thorp said that he is pursuing the matter of legal representation.
It is apparent, however, that Mr Thorp has access to legal advice. In Mr Thorp's email to the Court of Appeal office dated 17 June 2022 that is part of attachment 'DT-1' Mr Thorp refers to his legal adviser and potential representative.
In considering whether to vacate the appeal hearings the court evaluated the interests of justice informed by the goal and objects in O 1 rr 4A and 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and the proper principles of case management. The public interest in the efficient…
Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Thorp v Hudson [No 2] and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2022] WASCA 76
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The court considered the interests of justice informed by the goal and objects in O 1 rr 4A and 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) and the proper principles of case management. The court also considered the public interest in the efficient use of court resources. The court found that Mr Thorp had been aware of the date of the appeal hearings for four months and had ample time to prepare his oral submissions. The court further found that the applications to vacate were made very late in the day and that granting the applications would cause other litigants to fall further back in the queue of litigants waiting to have their appeals heard. Therefore, the court dismissed the applications to vacate the appeal hearings.
The court found that it was not in the interests of justice to vacate the appeal hearings. The court ordered that Mr Thorp's applications in an appeal dated 23 June 2022 to vacate the appeal hearings were dismissed.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
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.