Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd & Ors [2007] NSWCA 338

Ingot Capital Investments Pty Ltd & Ors v Macquarie Equity Capital Markets Ltd & Ors [2007] NSWCA 338

An extension of time was necessary because the leave to proceed granted on 5 November 2007 was construed as operating nunc pro tunc, so the time for filing ran from, at the latest, the August 2007 cross-appeal dates. Although the contingent nature of NCRA's proposed cross-appeal was not itself a reason to refuse extension, NCRA failed to show an arguable case that the trial judge had failed to consider the relevant causation allegations; the judge had dealt with and rejected the causal steps relied upon. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 November 2007
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File a Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Application Following Supreme Court Decision
Outcome
As between NCRA and the Guy Carpenter parties the application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time for Cross Appeal' 'leave to Proceed Against a Company in Liquidation' 'nunc Pro Tunc Leave' 'causation in Cross Claims' 'prospects of Success on Proposed Appeal']
['civil Procedure' 'corporations' 'appeals'] ['extension of Time for Cross Appeal' 'leave to Proceed Against a Company in Liquidation' 'nunc Pro Tunc Leave' 'causation in Cross Claims' 'prospects of Success on Proposed Appeal']

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 to File a Cross Appeal / Court of Appeal Application Following Supreme Court Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether NCRA required an extension of time to file a cross-appeal against the Guy Carpenter parties.' 'Whether the 14 day period for filing a cross-appeal ran only from the grant of leave to proceed against NCRA on 5 November 2007.' 'Whether there was an arguable case that the trial judge failed to consider the pleaded Causation Allegations against the Guy Carpenter parties.' 'Whether the proposed cross-appeal should be permitted despite its contingent character.']

Ratio Decidendi

An extension of time was necessary because the leave to proceed granted on 5 November 2007 was construed as operating nunc pro tunc, so the time for filing ran from, at the latest, the August 2007 cross-appeal dates. Although the contingent nature of NCRA's proposed cross-appeal was not itself a reason to refuse extension, NCRA failed to show an arguable case that the trial judge had failed to consider the relevant causation allegations; the judge had dealt with and rejected the causal steps relied upon. The application for extension of time was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

As between NCRA and the Guy Carpenter parties the application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['As between NCRA and the Guy Carpenter parties the application for extension of time is dismissed with costs.']