Branson v Wu
[2008] QDC 117
To print this judgment please return to the case and click on the PDF icon
next to the
case name. For court use, a full PDF copy is required or preferred.
Exit Distraction Free Reading Mode
Please Note: You are about to print a copy of the onscreen
version of
this judgment. For court use, a full PDF copy of the judgment is required or preferred. Please
return to
the case for PDF printing options.
- Unreported Judgment
- Branson v Wu[2008] QDC 117
- Add to List
Branson v Wu[2008] QDC 117
Branson v Wu[2008] QDC 117
[2008] QDC 117
DISTRICT COURT
CIVIL JURISDICTION
JUDGE ROBIN QC
No 3123 of 2005
JACK BRANSON | Appellant |
and | |
WAN LING WU | Respondent |
BRISBANE
DATE 19/05/2008
ORDER
Catchwords | - Uniform Civil Procedure Rules r 982(3) - Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 - appeal to District Court against protection order - appellant failed to file a certificate of readiness - order now expired - appellant had intimated to registry appeals officers that appeal might as well be "anulled" : "The Court's won, anyway" - appeal dismissed.
|
HIS HONOUR: I mark Exhibit 1 some submissions which the Registrar, Ms Faulkner, has prepared. They set out relevant parts of the history of this appeal which was instituted on the 22nd of August 2005 under the Domestic and Family Violence Protection Act 1989 in respect of a protection order which was obtained against the appellant, Mr Branson, by Wan Ling Wu.
On the 1st of August 2005 the notice of appeal under grounds states (and I quote) "I said that I would accept the orders without making admissions. I now want to change that decision. Also, the Magistrate would not allow me time to get a solicitor after the new statement was given to me on the weekend."
The appeal has not entirely languished. Mr Branson filed his voluminous outline of argument on the 21st of October 2005 and a more voluminous outline of argument under the practice direction from the respondent followed on the 21st of November 2005. The respondent signed and filed a certificate of readiness on the 5th of December 2005 but Mr Branson, the appellant, is delinquent in not having filed a certificate himself.
He thus leaves himself open to an application being made by the respondent to have the appeal struck out for want of prosecution. This is not a Justices Act matter so that the Court is not in the constrained position indicated by the Court of Appeal decision in Gamble v. Davidson [2000] 1 QdR 510 being unable to dispose of the appeal unless there is an application by the respondent to strike it out or a hearing date fixed at which it can be finally dealt with whether after a hearing on the merits or on some more peremptory basis.
The practicalities of the present situation are that the protection order appealed against has expired. The Court has made sporadic contact with Mr Branson, discovering various useful addresses and/or telephone numbers, by use of which contact has actually been made, most recently on the 22nd of April 2008. Ms Faulkner was told by Mr Branson, "Just go ahead and cancel the thing. The Court's won anyway.", or words to that effect. That conversation apparently replicated something that had occurred in an earlier contact.
I agree with the Registrar's submission that Rule 982(3) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules authorises the Court to strike out this appeal or dismiss it, given that the Justices Act restrictions do not apply. So, the Court's order is appeal dismissed.