Hurd v Zomojo Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 146

Hurd v Zomojo Pty Ltd (No 2) [2013] FCA 146

Applications for extension of time were refused because the applications were bound to fail; the decisions of the primary judge were not attended with sufficient doubt or likely to result in substantial injustice if leave were refused. There was no utility or jurisdictional basis for a stay, and time to move against the dismissal of a cross-claim was not extended, but that point could be raised in a subsequent final appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 March 2013
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Appeal (refusal of Extension of Time)
Outcome
Leave to extend time to apply for leave to appeal refused; leave to extend time to move for rescission of cross-claim dismissal refused; applicants to pay respondents' costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Applications' 'stay of Orders' 'rescission of Cross Claim Dismissal']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'interlocutory Applications' 'stay of Orders' 'rescission of Cross Claim Dismissal']

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

Interlocutory Application / Application for Leave to Appeal (refusal of Extension of Time)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether extension of time to apply for leave to appeal should be granted' 'Whether leave to appeal from orders of Gordon J should be granted' 'Whether stay of orders made by Gordon J should be granted' 'Whether extension of time to apply for leave to rescind orders made by Gordon J should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

Applications for extension of time were refused because the applications were bound to fail; the decisions of the primary judge were not attended with sufficient doubt or likely to result in substantial injustice if leave were refused. There was no utility or jurisdictional basis for a stay, and time to move against the dismissal of a cross-claim was not extended, but that point could be raised in a subsequent final appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to extend time to apply for leave to appeal refused; leave to extend time to move for rescission of cross-claim dismissal refused; applicants to pay respondents' costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave is refused to extend the time within which to apply for leave to appeal from the judgment of Gordon J of 5 February 2013.' 'Leave is refused to extend the time within which to apply for leave to rescind orders made by Gordon J on 5 February 2013 with respect to a cross-claim.' "The applicants for leave pay...