• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

Benjamin Joseph Clayton and TK Global Pty Ltd appealed against the whole of an order made by Bradley J on 7 March 2024 ([1]). Their notice of appeal was dated 21 August 2025. The reasons record that the Court had refused an application for a stay on 23 October 2025 under r 761 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), referring readers to its reasons in Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 199 for the background ([2]).

There was a significant change in Mr Clayton's position before the directions hearing. He filed a debtor petition on 22 October 2025 and was declared bankrupt on 29 October 2025 ([3]). On 17 November 2025, the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy notified the registry that it elected to discontinue its interest in the appeal under s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Doyle JA therefore said that it was necessary to consider only TK Global's appeal further ([4]). The reasons also note that Mr Clayton was TK Global's sole director and shareholder ([5]).

The procedural difficulty was that the appellants had not filed submissions. They had been given an extension to file from 2 October to 9 October 2025, but no submissions had been received by the time of the reasons ([6]). At a directions hearing on 26 November 2025, TK Global did not appear. The material before the Court indicated that both Mr Clayton and TK Global knew the hearing date ([7]). The respondents' counsel advised that their solicitor would provide an affidavit confirming that no outline of argument had been filed and served ([8]).

Doyle JA made orders vacating the appeal hearing listed for 2 February 2026; requiring the respondents to file the solicitor's affidavit; and directing TK Global to file and serve an outline by 4 pm on 3 December 2025. The order provided that, if TK Global did not comply, the appeal would be dismissed. Costs were reserved for later consideration on the papers, with costs material due by 4 pm on 5 December 2025 (orders 1–6).

Why the court decided this way

The Court gave three connected reasons. First, it considered that there was “no utility” in retaining the 2 February 2026 appeal hearing because no step had been taken to prosecute the appeal and Mr Clayton's appeal had been discontinued ([10]). In context, the point was about the usefulness of keeping that particular hearing date while the appeal remained unsupported by filed submissions and the Court needed to address the position of the remaining appellant.

Second, the Court considered dismissal appropriate “given the inaction on the part of the appellants”, but did not immediately dismiss the appeal. Instead, it gave TK Global a final opportunity to put its written submissions before the Court ([10]). The operative order made the consequence explicit: if TK Global failed to file and serve its outline by 4 pm on 3 December 2025, the appeal would be dismissed (order 4). The reason and the order should be read together. The Court treated the absence of submissions as a serious prosecution problem, but allowed a short final period for compliance.

Third, the Court considered it appropriate to deal with costs on the papers. It said this would minimise costs and potentially enable a fixed costs order ([10]). No final costs amount or liability was determined in these reasons. Instead, the costs issue was reserved, with any submissions or other material due by 4 pm on 5 December 2025 and consideration to occur on or after 8 December 2025 (orders 5–6).

The judgment records the case-specific factors that informed the orders: an earlier extension had expired without submissions being received; the remaining corporate appellant did not attend the directions hearing; the Court had material indicating awareness of the hearing date; and Mr Clayton's appeal was no longer being pursued by the Official Trustee ([4], [6]–[8]). The reasons do not set out a broader checklist for deciding when an appeal should be dismissed for inactivity, nor do they state that any one of these circumstances invariably requires dismissal.

Before and after state of the law

The judgment does not purport to change or comprehensively state the law governing appeals, bankruptcy, or dismissal for procedural default. Its contribution in this text is a record of a case-management decision and the reasons for the particular directions made.

The judgment identifies two legal provisions, but gives them limited treatment. It says that the earlier stay application was made under r 761 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld), and refers to the Court's earlier reasons in Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 199 for the background ([2]). It also records that the Official Trustee elected to discontinue its interest under s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) ([4]). The present reasons do not explain the broader operation of either provision. It would therefore go beyond this source to infer a general test from them.

The procedural approach expressly stated here is narrower: given the appeal's lack of progress and Mr Clayton's discontinued appeal, there was no utility in retaining the existing hearing date; in light of the appellants' inaction, dismissal was appropriate subject to a final opportunity for TK Global to file written submissions ([10]). The resulting dismissal was conditional, not recorded as having already occurred on 26 November 2025. The order prescribed a deadline and the consequence of non-compliance (orders 3–4).

Accordingly, the “before and after” distinction is not a change in doctrine shown by this judgment. The position before the orders was that an appeal hearing remained listed for 2 February 2026 despite the lack of filed submissions. The position after the orders was that the hearing date had been vacated, TK Global had a final filing deadline, and dismissal would follow if the direction was not met. The judgment does not report whether TK Global later complied or whether the conditional dismissal took effect.

Key passages with plain-English translation

The first key passage is: “There is no utility in maintaining the current appeal hearing date of 2 February 2026 in circumstances where no step has been taken to prosecute the appeal and the appeal by Mr Clayton has been discontinued” ([10]). In plain English, the Court saw no practical point in keeping the scheduled hearing while the appeal had not been advanced by submissions and Mr Clayton's appeal was no longer proceeding through the Official Trustee.

The second passage is: “Given the inaction on the part of the appellants, it is appropriate to dismiss the appeal, subject to affording TK Global a final opportunity to file its written submissions” ([10]). This explains the two-stage order. The Court considered dismissal appropriate, but first gave TK Global a final chance to provide the written material needed to advance its appeal. Order 4 defined what would happen if it did not meet the deadline.

The third passage is: “It is appropriate to deal with the matter on the papers to minimise the costs incurred and potentially to enable a fixed costs order to be made” ([10]). In plain English, the Court considered that the costs issue could be addressed through written material rather than another oral hearing, with the possible benefit of limiting costs and permitting a fixed costs order. The judgment does not say that a fixed costs order was ultimately made.

These passages are the Court's stated reasons, rather than a set of abstract rules. They should be read with the operative orders, which specify the relevant dates, the filing requirement, and the conditional consequence.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

The decision is most directly relevant to a procedural situation with features similar to those recorded here: an appeal has not been progressed by filing the required or expected submissions; an extension to file has already been given; the remaining appellant fails to attend a directions hearing despite indicated awareness of it; and the Court is considering whether to retain an appeal hearing date or give a final compliance opportunity ([6]–[10]).

It is also relevant where an appeal has more than one appellant and the status of one appellant changes before the Court considers the remaining appeal. Here, Mr Clayton's bankruptcy and the Official Trustee's election to discontinue its interest meant that Doyle JA said only TK Global's appeal required further consideration ([3]–[4]). The reasons separately identify Mr Clayton as TK Global's sole director and shareholder, but do not treat that fact as a basis for a substantive conclusion about the company's appeal ([5]).

The decision does not establish that every missed filing deadline, failure to attend, or period of inactivity will lead to dismissal. Nor does it decide the consequences of bankruptcy for all appeals or the legal effect of a particular failure to comply in other proceedings. The order was expressly conditional and made against the case-specific background set out in the reasons. Its practical significance lies in the Court's use of a final, dated direction with an express consequence, rather than an immediate unconditional dismissal.

How later courts have treated it

The supplied judgment contains no later judicial treatment of Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 238. It was delivered on 26 November 2025, and the text provides no subsequent decisions, citations, appeals, or commentary. No conclusion about how later courts have treated it can therefore be drawn from this source.

The only cited earlier decision is Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 199, mentioned at [2]. Doyle JA says that the earlier reasons summarised the background to the proceedings, and identifies that the Court refused the stay application under r 761 on 23 October 2025. In the present judgment, the earlier decision is referred to for procedural history. The text does not set out its reasoning, and this analysis does not attribute any further proposition to it.

Still-open questions

Several matters are left unresolved by the reasons. The judgment does not state whether TK Global filed its outline by 3 December 2025 or whether the conditional dismissal order took effect. It does not report whether the respondents filed the affidavit confirming that no outline had been filed and served. Those events occurred, or were due to occur, after the directions hearing described in the judgment.

The ultimate costs outcome is also open. Costs were reserved, and the judgment sets dates for written costs material and consideration on the papers, but does not record a later costs decision or its amount ([10], orders 5–6).

The merits of the appeal against Bradley J's order remain entirely undetermined in these reasons. The judgment does not describe the substantive issues on appeal, explain the underlying order, or assess the merits of any ground. It therefore cannot be used to infer that the appeal would have succeeded or failed had it proceeded to a merits hearing.

Finally, the reasons do not offer a general account of how bankruptcy affects appeals, beyond recording the Official Trustee's election under s 60(2) and its consequence for which appellant's appeal required further consideration ([3]–[4]). A broader legal analysis of that provision, r 761, or the available procedural powers would require sources beyond this judgment.

This is general legal information, not legal advice. Zoe can make mistakes. Before acting on or relying on this analysis, have a qualified Australian lawyer check it.