William Doolan v Hugh William Blennerhassett - [2025] QSC 208

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

William Doolan v Hugh William Blennerhassett [2025] QSC 208

PARTIES:

WILLIAM DOOLAN

(First Applicant)
and
ALLIED RURAL PTY LTD
(Second Applicant)

v
HUGH WILLIAM BLENNERHASSETT

(Respondent)

FILE NO/S:

BS12421/20

DIVISION:

Trial

PROCEEDING:

Application

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

3 September 2025

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

21 July 2025

JUDGE:

Martin SJA

ORDERS:

1.   The applicants have leave to proceed.

2.   The respondent’s application filed 17 July 2025 is dismissed.

3.   I will hear the parties on costs.

CATCHWORDS:

PROCEDURE – WANT OF PROSECUTION OR LACK OF PROGRESS – DELAY – DELAY OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS – LEAVE TO PROCEED – where the applicants commenced proceedings in 2020 – where a step has not been taken in the proceedings for more than two years – where the applicants sought leave to take a new step – where the respondent sought to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution – whether applicants’ explanation reasonable – whether leave to proceed should be granted

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 389(2), r 685

AlliedRural Pty Ltd v Stimpson[2023] QCA 77, considered
Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm) [2013] 2 Qd R 202; [2012] QCA 272, cited
Dempsey v Dorber [1990] 1 Qd R 418; [1989] QSCFC 92, cited
Lilyville Pty Ltd v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1999] QSC 372, considered
Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6, cited
ONE.TEL Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548; [2000] FCA 270, cited
Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd[2000] QCA 178, applied

COUNSEL:

R McDermott for the applicants
P O’Brien for the respondent

SOLICITORS:

Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the applicants
Spire Legal for the respondent

The applicants seek leave to take a new step because a step has not been taken in this proceeding for more than two years. They wish to pursue an order for costs against Mr Blennerhassett. He seeks an order that the proceeding be dismissed for want of prosecution.
The two-year limit is found in r 389(2) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999. It provides:
“If no step has been taken in a proceeding for 2 years from the time the last step was taken, a new step may not be taken without the order of the court, which may be made either with or without notice.”
For the reasons which follow, I will grant leave to proceed. It follows, then, that the application for dismissal must be dismissed.
What is a “step … in a proceeding”?
In both applications it is necessary to determine when the last step was taken in the proceedings as delay is a matter which should be taken into account.
The meaning of “step” was considered by McMurdo P in Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith[1] where her Honour said:
“[3] The…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read William Doolan v Hugh William Blennerhassett 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

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] QSC 208
Decision Date: 3 September 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of William Doolan against Hugh William Blennerhassett involves a dispute that was initiated in 2020. The proceedings have been marked by a significant delay of more than two years, during which no steps were taken. In response, Blennerhassett sought to dismiss the proceedings on the basis of a lack of prosecution, while Doolan applied for leave to proceed with a new step in the litigation process. The court was tasked with determining whether the applicants' explanation for the delay was reasonable and if leave to proceed should be granted.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the delay in the proceedings could be justified, given the factors presented by Doolan. These included the unusual circumstance of a threat made by Blennerhassett, which allegedly caused a significant pause in the litigation, as well as the tardiness of the former legal representatives. The court had to balance the need for the proceedings to move forward against the potential prejudice to Blennerhassett if the delay was not sufficiently explained.

The court concluded that the delay, while not extreme, was sufficiently explained by the combination of factors presented. The threat made by Blennerhassett, although unusual, was accepted as a valid reason for halting the litigation, as it would understandably cause anyone to withdraw from the proceedings temporarily. Additionally, the tardiness of the former lawyers contributed to the delay. Considering these explanations and the relatively moderate prejudice to Blennerhassett, the court found that Doolan should be granted leave to proceed. Consequently, Blennerhassett’s application to dismiss the proceedings was dismissed.

The court ordered that Doolan and his co-applicants have leave to proceed with the litigation. The respondent's application filed on 17 July 2025 was dismissed, and the court scheduled a future hearing to address the issue of costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicants have leave to proceed.

2. The respondent’s application filed 17 July 2025 is dismissed.

3. I will hear the parties on costs.

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

Mr Blennerhassett is, of course, an ordinary member of the community who is entitled to get on with his life. The delay in this case is not extreme and the prejudice to Mr Doolan not being able to seek his costs must also be considered.Conclusion The delay has been caused by a combination of factors. I have dealt with them above. The “threat” made by Mr Blennerhassett is an unusual factor in an application of this kind but I accept that it would cause anybody to, at least, withdraw from the field of battle for some time. That, together with the tardiness of the former lawyers, constitutes a satisfactory explanation for the delay. Upon considering all of the matters referred to above, I am satisfied that the applicants should have leave to proceed. It follows that the application by Mr Blennerhassett must be dismissed. I will hear the parties on costs.Orders That the applicants have leave to proceed. That the application of the respondent filed 17 July 2025 is dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.

CITATION:	William Doolan v Hugh William Blennerhassett [2025] QSC 208
PARTIES:	WILLIAM DOOLAN (First Applicant) and ALLIED RURAL PTY LTD (Second Applicant) v HUGH WILLIAM BLENNERHASSETT (Respondent)
FILE NO/S:	BS12421/20
DIVISION:	Trial
PROCEEDING:	Application
ORIGINATING COURT:	Supreme Court at Brisbane
DELIVERED ON:	3 September 2025
DELIVERED AT:	Brisbane
HEARING DATE:	21 July 2025
JUDGE:	Martin SJA
ORDERS:	1. The applicants have leave to proceed. 2. The respondent’s application filed 17 July 2025 is dismissed. 3. I will hear the parties on costs.
CATCHWORDS:	PROCEDURE – WANT OF PROSECUTION OR LACK OF PROGRESS – DELAY – DELAY OF MORE THAN TWO YEARS – LEAVE TO PROCEED – where the applicants commenced proceedings in 2020 – where a step has not been taken in the proceedings for more than two years – where the applicants sought leave to take a new step – where the respondent sought to dismiss the proceedings for want of prosecution – whether applicants’ explanation reasonable – whether leave to proceed should be granted Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 389(2), r 685 AlliedRural Pty Ltd v Stimpson[2023] QCA 77, considered Artahs Pty Ltd v Gall Standfield & Smith (A Firm) [2013] 2 Qd R 202; [2012] QCA 272, cited Dempsey v Dorber [1990] 1 Qd R 418; [1989] QSCFC 92, cited Lilyville Pty Ltd v Colonial Mutual Life Assurance Society Ltd [1999] QSC 372, considered Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs; Ex parte Lai Qin (1997) 186 CLR 622; [1997] HCA 6, cited ONE.TEL Ltd v Commissioner of Taxation (2000) 101 FCR 548; [2000] FCA 270, cited Tyler v Custom Credit Corp Ltd[2000] QCA 178, applied
COUNSEL:	R McDermott for the applicants P O’Brien for the respondent
SOLICITORS:	Robinson Locke Litigation Lawyers for the applicants Spire Legal for the respondent