FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Devere Holdings Pty Ltd v Verge [2012] FCA 842
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA | |
DEVERE HOLDINGS PTY LTD and PACKHAM PTY LTD (ACN 056 326 884) Appellants | |
AND: | EVAN ROBERT VERGE and GEORGE AUBREY LOPEZ First Respondents CASTLEWORLD PTY LTD Second Respondent |
DATE OF ORDER: | |
WHERE MADE: |
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. Pursuant to s 25(2B)(ba) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth), the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
2. The appellants pay the respondents’ costs in relation to this appeal, to be taxed if not agreed.
NOTE: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
WESTERN AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY | |
GENERAL DIVISION | WAD 29 of 2011 |
BETWEEN: | DEVERE HOLDINGS PTY LTD and PACKHAM PTY LTD (ACN 056 326 884) Appellants
|
AND: | EVAN ROBERT VERGE and GEORGE AUBREY LOPEZ First Respondents CASTLEWORLD PTY LTD Second Respondent
|
JUDGE: | GILMOUR J |
DATE: | 18 JULY 2012 |
PLACE: | PERTH |
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
1 In this matter a notice of appeal was filed by the appellants following a judgment of Justice McKerracher given on 22 December 2010. Since then the matter has not progressed, which makes the period of inaction on the part of the appellants some 17 months. I accept from what I have been told by counsel for the appellants that there was, for a period, a reason for inaction caused by the illness of the director of Devere Holdings Pty Ltd. However, that explanation has, for some time, no longer been applicable. Indeed, quite forthrightly, counsel for the appellants has, in effect, advised the Court that he has been without instructions for some time and certainly since the last callover.
2 This is the fifth or sixth occasion that the matter has appeared in the callover list. The appellants’ counsel submitted that I should make a springing order requiring the appellants to take the step of filing draft indices to the appeal books, and in the event that that is not complied with, that the appeal ought be dismissed. In effect, counsel for the first respondent opposed that application. In my opinion this appeal ought be dismissed for want or prosecution under s 25(2B)(ba) of the Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth) (the Act).
3 There is absolutely no explanation of any substance before the Court which would assist me in exercising a discretion in the way that the appellants, through its counsel, seeks for the grant of yet a further indulgence. The matter should be brought to finality and the respondents should be in a position where it knows that the matter is at an end.
4 Accordingly, I will for these reasons make an order pursuant to s 25(2B)(ba) of the Act that the appeal be dismissed for want of prosecution.
5 There will also be an order that the appellants pay the respondents’ costs in relation to the appeal to be taxed if not agreed.
I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Gilmour. |
Associate:
