Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 1766

Hamod v State of New South Wales [2001] FCA 1766

Extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments were refused as the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the judgments or the likelihood of substantial injustice if leave to appeal was not granted, and no satisfactory explanation or special reasons for the delay were established.

Parties
First Applicant: Anthony Hamod; Second Applicant: Hamock Investments Pty Limited; First Respondent: State of New South Wales; Second Respondent: UBS Australia Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
07 December 2001
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgments / Final Determination of Application
Outcome
Application dismissed
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Strike Out Applications, Costs
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Strike Out Applications 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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Hamod

First Applicant

Hamock Investments Pty Limited

Second Applicant

State of New South Wales

First Respondent

UBS Australia Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgments / Final Determination of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether extension of time to seek leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments should be granted
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal from interlocutory decisions should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time and leave to appeal from interlocutory judgments were refused as the applicants failed to demonstrate sufficient doubt as to the correctness of the judgments or the likelihood of substantial injustice if leave to appeal was not granted, and no satisfactory explanation or special reasons for the delay were established.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed

Orders

  • The application be dismissed.
  • The applicants pay the respondents' costs of the application.