Valassis v Bernard [2002] FCA 796

Valassis v Bernard [2002] FCA 796

The applicant did not establish special reasons for an extension of time. The delay of about ten months was extensive and inadequately explained because, despite medical evidence of serious illness, the applicant had appeared in Court on several occasions and filed at least one motion during the relevant period, and the evidence did not show he was unable to attend to an appeal or extension application. The substantive orders of Beaumont J had largely been overtaken by events, with only a relatively modest costs issue remaining, and there was no risk of serious injustice. The application was therefore dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 June 2002
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time in Which to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Dismissing the Application
Outcome
Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'bankruptcy Notice' "creditor's Petition" 'costs Orders']
['bankruptcy' 'civil Procedure' 'costs'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'bankruptcy Notice' "creditor's Petition" 'costs Orders']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time in Which to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Reasons for Judgment and Orders Dismissing the Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant had established special reasons for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the orders of Beaumont J made on 12 June 2001.' 'Whether the applicant provided an adequate explanation for the approximately ten month delay.' 'Whether the orders sought to be appealed had any practical effect beyond costs.' "Whether the applicant should pay the respondent's costs of the extension application."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant did not establish special reasons for an extension of time. The delay of about ten months was extensive and inadequately explained because, despite medical evidence of serious illness, the applicant had appeared in Court on several occasions and filed at least one motion during the relevant period, and the evidence did not show he was unable to attend to an appeal or extension application. The substantive orders of Beaumont J had largely been overtaken by events, with only a relatively modest costs issue remaining, and there was no risk of serious injustice. The application was therefore dismissed and the applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs."]