Ure v Robertson

[2017] QCA 20

Queensland Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Civil proceedings in state and territory courts
3. › Court supervision
4. › Want of prosecution or lack of progress
5. › Dismissal for want of prosecution
6. › Whether discretion to dismiss miscarried
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), rr 5, 280, 371, 389
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Civil proceedings in state and territory courts
3. › Continuation of proceeding after delay
4. › Step taken in breach of rules
5. › Whether irregular step constitutes a 'step' for purposes of r 389(2)
6. › Whether 'last step' means last effectual step
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 389(2)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Civil proceedings in state and territory courts
3. › Non-compliance with rules
4. › Effect of failure to comply
5. › Whether irregular step is effectual or merely not a nullity
6. › Distinction between nullity and effectuality
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 371
1. Appeal
2. › Standard of appellate review
3. › Appeal from discretionary judgment
4. › Whether error of the kind identified in House v The King demonstrated
5. › Whether primary judge mistook facts or failed to take into account material considerations

Quick Take

Under UCPR r 389(2), a step taken in breach of the rule (without obtaining a court order after two years of inactivity) does not constitute a 'step' that restarts the two-year period. The 'last step' means the last effectual step. A party who takes a step in breach of r 389(2) must apply to the court for an order under r 371(2)(d) declaring the step effectual, or for an order nunc pro tunc under r 389(2). The decision in Perez v Transfield (Qld) Pty Ltd no longer applies because the UCPR does not reproduce O 93 r 18, meaning there is no time limit within which an opponent must apply to set aside an irregular step.