Mulhern v Pearce [2012] FCA 884

Mulhern v Pearce [2012] FCA 884

In the absence of any explanation or compliance by the appellant with rules or court orders, and no indication that compliance will be forthcoming, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a court direction.

Parties
Appellant: Michael Richard Mulhern; First Respondent: Mark William Pearce and Andrew John Heers; Second Respondent: Joseph Michael Dodrill
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 August 2012
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution or Failure to Comply With Court Direction
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Dismissal for Want of Prosecution, Failure to Comply With Court Directions, Appeal Procedure
Bankruptcy Civil Procedure Dismissal for Want of Prosecution Failure to Comply With Court Directions Appeal Procedure

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Richard Mulhern

Appellant

Mark William Pearce and Andrew John Heers

First Respondent

Joseph Michael Dodrill

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application to Dismiss Appeal for Want of Prosecution or Failure to Comply With Court Direction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appeal should be dismissed for want of prosecution or for failure to comply with court orders and rules

Ratio Decidendi

In the absence of any explanation or compliance by the appellant with rules or court orders, and no indication that compliance will be forthcoming, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution or failure to comply with a court direction.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal be dismissed.
  • The first respondent's costs of this application and of the appeal be costs in the bankrupt's estate.