Sharman License Holdings Ltd v Universal Music Aust Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 802

Sharman License Holdings Ltd v Universal Music Aust Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 802

The applicants did not satisfactorily explain their delay in seeking leave to appeal because they did not establish when the perceived conflict of interest arose and the evidence did not show that the perceived conflict explained the delay. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the extension of time was refused and it was unnecessary to consider the arguability of the proposed grounds of appeal or leave to appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
17 June 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal From Mareva Orders / Motion by Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 26 May 2005
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'mareva Orders' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'delay' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'mareva Orders' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'delay' '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 for Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal From Mareva Orders / Motion by Amended Notice of Motion Filed on 26 May 2005

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants gave a satisfactory explanation for filing and serving their application for leave to appeal outside the seven-day period in O 52 r 10(2)(b) of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether time should be extended to seek leave to appeal from Mareva orders made on 22 March 2005.' 'Whether it was necessary to consider the arguability of the proposed grounds of appeal or the application for leave to appeal.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants did not satisfactorily explain their delay in seeking leave to appeal because they did not establish when the perceived conflict of interest arose and the evidence did not show that the perceived conflict explained the delay. In the absence of a satisfactory explanation, the extension of time was refused and it was unnecessary to consider the arguability of the proposed grounds of appeal or leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The motion brought by amended notice of motion filed on 26 May 2005 be dismissed.' "The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the motion."]