Trajkovski v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2022] FCA 791

Trajkovski v Australia and New Zealand Banking Group Limited [2022] FCA 791

The discretion under r 1.39 should not be exercised because, weighing all relevant factors and particularly the lack of merit in the applicants' claims, it was not appropriate to extend time to comply with the self-executing orders; the applicants had previously failed to file a statement of claim, gave no explanation for non-compliance, refused offered legal assistance, and granting an extension would prolong meritless proceedings and prejudice the respondents.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 July 2022
Procedural Posture
Application Under R 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for Extension of Time to Comply With Self Executing Orders / Determined on the Papers; Final Orders
Outcome
The applicants' application for extension of time was refused, the originating application was refused, and the proceeding was dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'self Executing Orders' 'failure to File and Serve Statement of Claim' 'dismissal of Proceeding' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'corporations and Corporate Insolvency'] ['extension of Time' 'self Executing Orders' 'failure to File and Serve Statement of Claim' 'dismissal of Proceeding' 'costs']

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 Under R 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for Extension of Time to Comply With Self Executing Orders / Determined on the Papers; Final Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should extend the time under r 1.39 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth) for the applicants to comply with self-executing orders requiring filing and service of a statement of claim.' "Whether the merits of the applicants' underlying claim and other discretionary factors justified granting an extension of time."]

Ratio Decidendi

The discretion under r 1.39 should not be exercised because, weighing all relevant factors and particularly the lack of merit in the applicants' claims, it was not appropriate to extend time to comply with the self-executing orders; the applicants had previously failed to file a statement of claim, gave no explanation for non-compliance, refused offered legal assistance, and granting an extension would prolong meritless proceedings and prejudice the respondents.

Court Disposition

The applicants' application for extension of time was refused, the originating application was refused, and the proceeding was dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' originating application dated 17 November 2021 be refused." 'The proceeding be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the proceeding, to be agreed or assessed."]