Percey v Calvert

[2004] TASSC 115

Supreme Court of Tasmania

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Want of prosecution
3. › Leave to proceed after delay
4. › Six-year rule
5. › Whether good reason shown
6. › Relevant factors including explanation for delay, merits, and prejudice
7. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r56(1)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Departing from the general rule
4. › Refusal of leave to proceed after delay
5. › Whether refusal equivalent to defendant succeeding on merits
6. › Whether costs of action should follow where liability admitted and proceedings not finally disposed of
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Steps in proceedings
3. › What constitutes a step
4. › Whether application for stay of proceedings is a step
5. › Supreme Court Rules 2000 (Tas), r56(1)

Quick Take

Where leave to proceed after a six-year delay is refused under r56(1) but liability has been admitted, the refusal should not be equated with the defendant establishing non-liability for the purpose of costs. The defendant's avoidance of damages by reason of the plaintiff's dilatoriness does not as a matter of course entitle the defendant to costs of the action to date. A step in a proceeding for the purposes of r56(1) is a procedural step to carry the action forward to final judgment; an application for a stay of proceedings is not such a step.