Wickham Developments Pty Ltd v B M Culley & Associates Pty Ltd

[2001] QCA 168

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
MACKENZIE J

Appeal No 9114 of 2000

WICKHAM DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
(ACN 010 915 027) Respondent/Appellant

and

B M CULLEY AND ASSOCIATES PTY LTD First Applicant/
First Respondent

and

BMC SPECIAL PROJECTS PTY LTD
(ACN 068 478 102) Second Applicant/
Second Respondent

BRISBANE

..DATE 01/05/2001

ORDER

McPHERSON JA: This is an application for leave to appeal against a decision of the Chief Judge of the District Court. Mr Fraser appears for the respondent which was successful in the Court below. On the matter being called on, there was no appearance from the first applicant B M Culley and Associates Pty Ltd or the second applicant B M C Special Projects Pty Ltd.

In those circumstances, Mr Fraser, for the respondent, has asked that the application for leave be struck out. In my view it is proper to make that order on the material as we have it and in the light of the events that have taken place, and I would order that the application be struck out with costs.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

MACKENZIE J: I agree.

McPHERSON JA: The order is that the application is struck out with costs.

-----

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Wickham Developments Pty Ltd v B M Culley & Associates Pty Ltd involved the respondent, Wickham Developments, and the applicants, B M Culley & Associates Pty Ltd and BMC Special Projects Pty Ltd. The dispute arose from a decision made by the Chief Judge of the District Court, which Wickham Developments sought to appeal. The applicants, however, did not appear in court on the day of the hearing, leading Wickham Developments to request the dismissal of the application with costs.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the application for leave to appeal should be dismissed due to the absence of the applicants. The court had to determine whether the lack of appearance by the applicants justified the striking out of the application, and if so, whether costs should be awarded to the respondent. The court's decision would hinge on the procedural rules governing applications for leave to appeal and the consequences of non-appearance by the applicants.

The Court of Appeal unanimously found that the application for leave to appeal should indeed be dismissed. McPherson JA, on behalf of the court, stated that it was proper to strike out the application given the circumstances, including the absence of the applicants. The judges agreed that the material before the court, combined with the events that transpired, warranted the dismissal of the application. Consequently, the appeal was struck out, and costs were ordered to be paid by the applicants.

In summary, the Court of Appeal dismissed the application for leave to appeal, striking it out with costs due to the non-appearance of the applicants. The unanimous decision reflects the court's adherence to procedural rules and the consequences of failing to participate in the legal process.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established