GUY v BRITTEN [1988] NSWCA 59

GUY v BRITTEN [1988] NSWCA 59

Given the prolonged inaction by the opponent and her expressed intention not to proceed, along with no opposition to dismissal, the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Parties
Claimant: Guy; Opponent: Britten
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 February 1988
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution
Outcome
Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution
Practice & Procedure Dismissal 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 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Guy

Claimant

Britten

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Motion to Dismiss for Want of Prosecution

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution

Ratio Decidendi

Given the prolonged inaction by the opponent and her expressed intention not to proceed, along with no opposition to dismissal, the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed for want of prosecution

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.
  • The opponent pay the claimant's costs of the appeal and of the notice of motion.