Dispute Resolution Associates Pty Ltd v Selth (No 2) [2020] FCA 844

Dispute Resolution Associates Pty Ltd v Selth (No 2) [2020] FCA 844

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants did not provide an adequate explanation for the substantial delay in filing, and their grounds for appeal, including allegations of procedural unfairness, apprehended or actual bias, and denial of opportunity to be heard, were found to be plainly hopeless. The primary Judge had acted within procedural and legal norms, applicants had opportunities to be heard, no error in handling of the application or demonstration of bias was established in fact or law, and no merit or sufficient doubt was shown to warrant reconsideration on appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2020
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'taxation of Costs' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias']
['civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'taxation of Costs' 'procedural Fairness' 'apprehended Bias' 'actual Bias']

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

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants provided an adequate explanation for delay in seeking leave to appeal' 'Whether the decision of the primary Judge was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration on appeal' 'Whether the applicants were denied procedural fairness by the administration of the Court or conduct of the primary Judge' 'Whether a fair-minded lay observer would reasonably apprehend that the primary Judge would not bring an impartial mind to the case' 'Whether the applicants were unjustly denied the ability to object to the Costs Estimate out of time' 'Whether the primary Judge should have exercised a discretionary power to waive or vary rules under s 37P(3)(f) of the Federal Court of Australia Act']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed because the applicants did not provide an adequate explanation for the substantial delay in filing, and their grounds for appeal, including allegations of procedural unfairness, apprehended or actual bias, and denial of opportunity to be heard, were found to be plainly hopeless. The primary Judge had acted within procedural and legal norms, applicants had opportunities to be heard, no error in handling of the application or demonstration of bias was established in fact or law, and no merit or sufficient doubt was shown to warrant reconsideration on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time and leave to appeal filed on 9 August 2018 is dismissed.' 'The parties are to provide draft case management orders to the Chambers of Justice Collier in relation to the issue of costs by 4.00 pm on 1 July 2020.']