Sealby v Obelisk Securities Pty Ltd & Ors [1999] NSWCA 368

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeals / Respondents' Notices of Motion Seeking Dismissal of Notices of Appeal for Non Compliance With Appeal Book Requirements; Appellant Sought an Adjournment

Legal Issues

1. 1 ['Whether the appeals should be dismissed for want of prosecution because the appellant failed to comply with rules and directions for filing appeal books, submissions and chronology.' 'Whether the appellant should be granted an adjournment of between two and three months on the basis of lack of funds and an expectation of future funds.' 'Whether the appellant should be permitted to give oral evidence about his financial position instead of providing affidavit evidence.']

Ratio Decidendi

The appeals were dismissed for want of prosecution because, despite the Rules, reminders and legal advice, there had been gross delay and non-compliance in preparing the appeals for hearing, the hearing date had been set aside to the disadvantage of other litigants, and there was no verified material showing a real prospect that the appellant would be able to fund and prosecute the appeals if adjourned.

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed for want of prosecution, with costs, subject to a one-month stay on condition allowing the appellant to file a detailed affidavit and apply to rescind the order.

Orders

• ['In each appeal, the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution.' 'The appellant is to pay the costs of the respondents, including the costs of the claimants on the respective notices of motion.' 'The order is stayed for one month on condition that, within that time, the appellant files an affidavit disclosing in...