The Birkett v James guidelines do not operate as rigid rules controlling the discretion to dismiss for want of prosecution in Queensland. The court may strike out an action under its inherent jurisdiction where the circumstances — including persistent unexplained delay, repeated non-compliance with court orders, and the passage of time — require it, even where the case does not fall within either limb of the Birkett v James test. Factors relevant to the discretion include the duration of delay, the cogency of any explanation, the impact on recollection and witnesses, costs, prospects of success, and the defendant's interest in finality.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 57 later cases that cite this judgment.
6 of the 57 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.