A proceeding may be dismissed as an abuse of process where extensive delay, loss of contemporaneous records, fading memories, and shifting allegations mean that a fair trial is not possible, even where no single period of inactivity exceeds two years under r 389(2) UCPR. UCPR r 5(4) does not provide a freestanding power to dismiss proceedings absent an identified breach of the rules or a court order; the power to dismiss for abuse of process in the District Court derives from s 69(1) of the District Court of Queensland Act 1967. The express recognition in r 5(3) of the importance of expeditious resolution must be borne in mind when assessing whether continuation of proceedings would constitute an abuse of process.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 8 later cases that cite this judgment.
2 of the 8 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.