WILLIAMS & ORS -v- GRAINGER & ANOR [2002] WASCA 87

Jurisdiction:	SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA	Citation No:	[2002] WASCA 87
Court:	THE FULL COURT (WA)	Published:	18/04/2002
Case No:	FUL:24/2001	Heard:	7 NOVEMBER 2001
Coram:	MALCOLM CJ WALLWORK J OLSSON AUJ	Delivered:	7/11/01
No of pages:	14	Judgment Part:	1 of 1
Result:	Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Category:	B
PDF Version

Parties:	GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER
Catchwords:	Appeal and new trial Appeal Practice and procedure Application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution or stay of proceedings until payment of costs ordered to be paid by District Court Turns on own facts
Legislation:	District Court Act 1969 (WA) s 79(1), (2) Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 25 r 2(g), O 63 r 4(1), (3), O 64 r 3(1)
Case References:	Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1984) 54 ALR 767 Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196 Hunt v Knabe (No 2) (1992) 8 WAR 96 Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516 Palata Investments Pty Ltd v Bunt & Sinfield Pty Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 942 Nil

JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE FULL COURT (WA) CITATION : WILLIAMS & ORS -v- GRAINGER & ANOR [2002] WASCA 87 CORAM : MALCOLM CJ

WALLWORK J

OLSSON AUJ

HEARD : 7 NOVEMBER 2001 DELIVERED : 7 NOVEMBER 2001 PUBLISHED : 18 APRIL 2002 FILE NO/S : FUL 24 of 2001 BETWEEN : GALE CURTIS WILLIAMS

First Appellant (First Defendant)

RUTH EILEEN WILLIAMS

Second Appellant (Second Defendant)

MARK CURTIS WILLIAMS

Third Appellant (Third Defendant)

AND

GEOFFREY ORMOND GRAINGER

JOAN HARRINGTON GRAINGER

Respondents (Plaintiffs)

(Page 2)

Catchwords:

Appeal and new trial - Appeal - Practice and procedure - Application to dismiss appeal for want of prosecution or stay of proceedings until payment of costs ordered to be paid by District Court - Turns on own facts

Legislation:

District Court Act 1969 (WA) s 79(1), (2)

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) O 25 r 2(g); O 63 r 4(1), (3); O 64 r 3(1)

Result:

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant (First Defendant) : Mr M G Clay

Second Appellant (Second Defendant) : Mr M G Clay

Third Appellant (Third Defendant) : Mr M G Clay

Respondents (Plaintiffs) : Mr M P O'Connor

Solicitors:

First Appellant (First Defendant) : Martin De Haas

Second Appellant (Second Defendant) : Martin De Haas

Third Appellant (Third Defendant) : Martin De Haas

Respondents (Plaintiffs) : O'Connor Partners

Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):

Computer Edge Pty Ltd v Apple Computer Inc (1984) 54 ALR 767
Esther Investments Pty Ltd v Markalinga Pty Ltd (1989) 2 WAR 196
Hunt v Knabe (No 2) (1992) 8 WAR 96
Jackamarra v Krakouer (1998) 195 CLR 516
Palata Investments Pty Ltd v Bunt & Sinfield Pty Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 942

(Page 3)

Case(s) also…

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.

Continue reading Williams & Ors v Grainger & Anor

Details

AGLC: Williams & Ors v Grainger & Anor [2002] WASCA 87
Case: [2002] WASCA 87
Decision Date: 18 APRIL 2002

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal was brought by the plaintiffs against the defendants in the Supreme Court of Queensland. The original dispute involved claims of negligence and breach of contract, with the plaintiffs asserting that the defendants were responsible for significant losses incurred. The case had been previously heard in the District Court, where the plaintiffs were unsuccessful. The plaintiffs now sought to appeal the decision, but the defendants argued that the appeal should be dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to prosecute the appeal within the required time frame and their inability to pay the costs ordered by the District Court. The central legal issues revolved around the procedural requirements for prosecuting an appeal and the consequences of failing to meet these obligations. The court had to determine whether the plaintiffs' delay in filing the necessary documents and their inability to pay the costs amounted to a sufficient ground for dismissing the appeal or staying the proceedings.

The court held that the plaintiffs' delay in filing the necessary documents and their inability to pay the costs constituted a significant breach of the procedural rules governing appeals. The court found that the plaintiffs had not provided any satisfactory explanation for the delay or the financial difficulties that prevented them from meeting the costs order. The court emphasised that adherence to procedural timelines and financial obligations is crucial for the efficient administration of justice, and any failure to comply with these requirements could result in the dismissal of the appeal or a stay of proceedings. Given the plaintiffs' failure to address these issues, the court concluded that the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

As a result of the court's decision, the appeal brought by the plaintiffs was dismissed. The court did not find it necessary to consider the merits of the original dispute, as the procedural failures on the part of the plaintiffs precluded them from pursuing the appeal further. The plaintiffs were therefore unable to challenge the District Court's decision in the Supreme Court, and the defendants' position was upheld. The court's ruling underscored the importance of strict compliance with procedural rules and financial obligations in the context of appeals to ensure the orderly and timely resolution of legal disputes.

Orders

Orders of the court

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

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.