Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2009] NSWDC 420

Zepinic v Chateau Constructions (Aust) Limited [2009] NSWDC 420

The Amended Summons was filed out of time, time for appeal ran from notification of the Tribunal's reasons on 24 December 2008, and the absence of a properly pleaded and timely application for extension of time, together with absence of sufficient reason for dispensing with procedural requirements, justified refusal to grant leave to extend time and dismissal of the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 November 2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application on Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome
Amended Summons dismissed; leave to extend time refused.
Legal Topics
['interlocutory Orders' 'appeal Period' 'extension of Time' 'consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act']
['civil Procedure'] ['interlocutory Orders' 'appeal Period' 'extension of Time' 'consumer Trader and Tenancy Tribunal Act']

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

Civil Appeal / Interlocutory Application on Extension of Time to File Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether it is appropriate to reconsider an interlocutory issue previously decided by another judge' 'Whether the summons for appeal was filed within time' 'If filed out of time, whether leave should be granted to extend the time for appeal']

Ratio Decidendi

The Amended Summons was filed out of time, time for appeal ran from notification of the Tribunal's reasons on 24 December 2008, and the absence of a properly pleaded and timely application for extension of time, together with absence of sufficient reason for dispensing with procedural requirements, justified refusal to grant leave to extend time and dismissal of the appeal.

Court Disposition

Amended Summons dismissed; leave to extend time refused.

Orders

  • ['Refuse leave to make oral application to extend time to file appeal.' 'Amended Summons dismissed.' "Plaintiffs to pay first defendant's costs of the proceedings and Notice of Motion filed 20 October 2009, assessed on a party/party basis." 'No order as to costs between plaintiffs and second defendant (each to bear...