Price v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 323

Price v Commonwealth of Australia [2014] FCA 323

The applicants failed to comply with an order to file and serve an amended statement of claim and did not appear at the directions hearing. In these circumstances, pursuant to r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and considering the applicants' default under rr 5.22(b), (c) and (d), it was appropriate to dismiss the proceeding for want of prosecution.

Parties
First Applicant: Garry Price; Second Applicant: Gregory Shah; Respondent: Commonwealth of Australia
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 March 2014
Procedural Posture
Originating Application / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
proceeding dismissed for want of prosecution

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Garry Price

First Applicant

Gregory Shah

Second Applicant

Commonwealth of Australia

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Originating Application / Dismissal for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the proceeding should be dismissed for want of prosecution due to failure to file an amended statement of claim

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to comply with an order to file and serve an amended statement of claim and did not appear at the directions hearing. In these circumstances, pursuant to r 1.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth), and considering the applicants' default under rr 5.22(b), (c) and (d), it was appropriate to dismiss the proceeding for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

proceeding dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The proceeding be dismissed.