Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 238

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND CITATION: Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 238 PARTIES: BENJAMIN JOSEPH CLAYTON (first appellant) TK GLOBAL PTY LTD ACN 631 217 224 (second appellant) v DAVID JOHN EBBORN (first respondent) STREAMLINE PRO PTY LTD ACN 162 700 601 (second respondent) FILE NO/S: Appeal No 3723 of 2025 SC No 11976 of 2022 DIVISION: Court of Appeal PROCEEDING: Review ORIGINATING COURT: Supreme Court at Brisbane – Date of Orders: 7 March 2024 (Bradley J) DELIVERED ON: Date of Orders: 26 November 2025 Date of Publication of Reasons: 26 November 2025 DELIVERED AT: Brisbane HEARING DATE: 26 November 2025 JUDGE: Doyle JA ORDERS: Date of Orders: 26 November 2025 1. The appeal hearing of 2 February 2026 is vacated. 2. The respondents are to file an affidavit from the respondents’ solicitor deposing to there being no outline of argument in the appeal filed and served by the appellants. 3. The Court directs that the second appellant is to file and serve its outline of submissions in the appeal by no later than 4 pm on 3 December 2025. 4. Failing compliance with that direction, the appeal is dismissed. 5. Costs reserved. 6. Costs to be dealt with on the papers on or after 8 December 2025 and any submissions or other material in relation to costs to be provided by 4 pm on 5 December 2025. -- 1 of 3 -- 2 COUNSEL: No appearance for the appellants S W Trewavas for the respondents SOLICITORS: No appearance for the appellants Aitken Whyte Lawyers for the respondents [1] DOYLE JA: By their notice of appeal dated 21 August 2025, the first appellant (Mr Clayton) and the second appellant (TK Global) appeal against the whole of the order of Bradley J made on 7 March 2024. [2] On 23 October 2025, I refused the appellants’ application for a stay pursuant to rule 761 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld).1 A summary of the background to the proceedings is set out in those reasons at [2]-[6]. [3] On 22 October, Mr Clayton filed a debtor petition. He was subsequently declared bankrupt on 29 October 2025. [4] By correspondence to the registry dated 17 November 2025, the Official Trustee in Bankruptcy elected to discontinue its interest in the appeal pursuant to s 60(2) of the Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth). Accordingly, it is only necessary to further consider the appeal by the second appellant. [5] As the material demonstrates, Mr Clayton is the sole director and shareholder of TK Global. [6] The appellants had been granted an extension in respect of filing their submissions in the appeal from 2 October 2025 to 9 October 2025. To date, no submissions have been received. [7] On 26 November 2025, a directions hearing was held. TK Global did not attend. The material before the Court indicates that Mr Clayton, and TK Global, were aware of the hearing date. [8] I was advised by counsel for the respondents that their solicitor would file and serve an affidavit deposing to no outline having been filed and served by the appellants in the appeal. [9] At the completion of the hearing, I made the following orders: (a) The appeal hearing of 2 February 2026 is vacated. (b) The respondents are to file an affidavit from the respondents’ solicitor deposing to there being no outline of argument in the appeal filed and served by the appellants. (c) The Court directs that the second appellant is to file and serve its outline of submissions in the appeal by no later than 4 pm on 3 December 2025. (d) Failing compliance with that direction, the appeal is dismissed. (e) Costs reserved. (f) Costs to be dealt with on the papers on or after 8 December 2025 and any submissions or other material in relation to costs to be provided by 4 pm on 5 December 2025. 1 Clayton v Ebborn [2025] QCA 199. -- 2 of 3 -- 3 (g) Reasons to follow. [10] My reasons for making those orders are: (a) 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. (b) 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. (c) 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. -- 3 of 3 --