Treswhite v Cavallo

I had completed my reasons for judgment in this matter on Thursday 17 February 2005 when I was requested not to publish them. I said I would delay by a week. On Wednesday 23 February 2005, I was requested to stand the matter over again and I did so until Monday 28 February 2005. On that day a further request was made and I stood the matter over to today. There is a limit to the extent to which the court should hold its hand before publishing its reasons.

The parties need the consent of the court to allow a discontinuance or a withdrawal ( Supreme Court Rules 1970, Pt 21 r 1 and r 2) or to make orders on a compromise ( Supreme Court Act 1970, s 91(1)).

In the exercise of such discretions, courts have refused to accept compromises and have delivered judgment instead. In Voss v Suncorp-Metway No. 1 (2004) 1 Qd R 212 the parties had settled an appeal but the court refused to accept the settlement. The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), r 762 provided that the parties might agree an appeal should be dismissed by consent. Nevertheless, the Court of Appeal held that it had a discretion not to make an order in terms of the memorandum filed by the parties. It concluded that there were errors in the judgment below of general importance that needed to be corrected.

In this case, my judgment does not involve issues of principle of general importance. I am prepared, therefore, to accept the parties' compromise.

I make orders in terms of the short minutes of orders initialled by me, dated by me and placed with the papers.