Joice v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Anor [2004] NSWCA 262

Joice v Permanent Trustee Company Limited & Anor [2004] NSWCA 262

The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the putative appeal had little prospect of success and, by the way the case was conducted at trial and at reference, the applicant was treated as indistinguishable from the other valuer defendants. Both duty and breach were ultimately conceded or not contested at the proper stages, and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from finality. The applicant's personal blamelessness and impecuniosity did not absolve him, and the respondents would be unduly prejudiced by a further delay.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 July 2004
Procedural Posture
Notice of Motion – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application to Extend Time to Appeal From Judgment of Davies AJ Dated 22 July 1999
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['appeals' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'negligence' 'professional Negligence']
['civil Procedure'] ['appeals' 'extension of Time' 'procedural Fairness' 'negligence' 'professional Negligence']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Notice of Motion – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Application to Extend Time to Appeal From Judgment of Davies AJ Dated 22 July 1999

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether to grant an extension of time to appeal after a five-year delay' 'Whether the appeal has prospects of success, particularly in relation to findings of liability against the applicant as a valuer' 'Impact of the conduct of prior proceedings and representation on appealability']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time to appeal was dismissed because the putative appeal had little prospect of success and, by the way the case was conducted at trial and at reference, the applicant was treated as indistinguishable from the other valuer defendants. Both duty and breach were ultimately conceded or not contested at the proper stages, and there were no exceptional circumstances warranting departure from finality. The applicant's personal blamelessness and impecuniosity did not absolve him, and the respondents would be unduly prejudiced by a further delay.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['Notice of Motion dated 30 June 2004 dismissed with costs']