Lashansky v Legal Practice Board

[2010] WASC 159

Supreme Court of Western Australia

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Case management
3. › Inactive Cases List
4. › Whether action validly placed on Inactive Cases List
5. › Whether procedural step taken in preceding 12 months
6. › Whether steps in related proceedings constitute procedural steps in the action
7. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 29A rr 18A, 19
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Case management
3. › Inactive Cases List
4. › Removal from Inactive Cases List
5. › Discretionary considerations
6. › Whether evidence of commitment to progress proceedings
7. › Whether explanation for delay
8. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 29A r 20(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Case management
3. › Inactive Cases List
4. › Self-executing dismissal
5. › Whether power to remove case from list endures beyond expiry of six-month period
6. › Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 29A r 21
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Costs
3. › Indemnity costs
4. › Whether special or unusual feature justifying departure from party-party costs
5. › Whether delay and failure to confer sufficient

Quick Take

Steps taken in related proceedings, including requesting the file of one action to be before the court during a hearing in another, do not constitute procedural steps in the action for the purposes of O 29A r 18A. A notice of change of solicitor is not a procedural step. The power to order removal from the Inactive Cases List does not survive the expiry of the six-month period under O 29A r 21, which is self-executing. Applicants for removal must provide evidence of commitment to progress the action and a proposed timetable.