Plankton Australia Pty Limited v Rainstorm Dust Control Pty Limited [2018] FCA 727

Plankton Australia Pty Limited v Rainstorm Dust Control Pty Limited [2018] FCA 727

The extension of time was granted because the application was only 5 business days late, the delay was brief and explained by an understandable administrative error by the applicants' solicitor, the respondents did not oppose the application or contend prejudice, and there was no demonstrable abuse or manifestly inarguable proposition in the draft grounds of appeal. The stay of the costs order was dismissed because the applicants had paid the outstanding costs order and did not press the issue.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Application Under Rule 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for an Extension of Time in Which to Appeal, With an Application to Stay a Costs Order / Determined on the Papers
Outcome
Application for extension of time granted; application to stay the costs order dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'stay of Costs Order' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Rr 36.03 and 36.05' 'unopposed Application' 'short Delay in Filing']
['practice and Procedure' 'commercial and Corporations' 'regulator and Consumer Protection'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'stay of Costs Order' 'federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) Rr 36.03 and 36.05' 'unopposed Application' 'short Delay in Filing']

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 Rule 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (cth) for an Extension of Time in Which to Appeal, With an Application to Stay a Costs Order / Determined on the Papers

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time within which to appeal should be granted where the application was filed 5 business days outside the 21-day period prescribed under r 36.03 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).' "Whether the applicants' explanation for the delay was acceptable." 'Whether there was prejudice to the respondents or any issue concerning the merits of the proposed appeal that would warrant refusing the extension.' 'Whether the order for costs in favour of the respondents should be stayed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted because the application was only 5 business days late, the delay was brief and explained by an understandable administrative error by the applicants' solicitor, the respondents did not oppose the application or contend prejudice, and there was no demonstrable abuse or manifestly inarguable proposition in the draft grounds of appeal. The stay of the costs order was dismissed because the applicants had paid the outstanding costs order and did not press the issue.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time granted; application to stay the costs order dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time within which to lodge the appeal is granted and the time for the applicants to file their appeal will be extended to 1 June 2018.' 'The application to stay the order for costs in favour of the respondents is dismissed.' 'The appeal be listed before a Full Court in the August...