Sebie v Krejci [2023] NSWCA 187

Sebie v Krejci [2023] NSWCA 187

The applicants were significantly out of time, gave no adequate explanation for the delay, and failed to identify any fairly arguable or reasonably clear error in the winding up order, the discontinuance order, the possession and caveat orders, the refusal of a stay, or the costs orders. Accordingly, an extension of time for leave to appeal was refused, leave-related relief was dismissed, and the amended notice of motion was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling
Outcome
Extension of time refused; amended summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; amended notice of motion dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the liquidator's costs in this Court.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'winding Up in Insolvency' 'statutory Demand' 'possession of Property' 'removal of Caveat' 'stay of Writ of Possession' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'costs']
['corporations Law' 'civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'insolvency' 'property Law'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'winding Up in Insolvency' 'statutory Demand' 'possession of Property' 'removal of Caveat' 'stay of Writ of Possession' 'vexatious Proceedings' 'costs']

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 and Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether an extension of time should be granted for leave to appeal from the winding up order and related orders.' 'Whether the proposed appeal from the winding up order raised a fairly arguable case.' 'Whether the proposed appeal from the consent discontinuance order made on 15 August 2022 should be permitted.' 'Whether the proposed appeal from orders for possession of the Homebush property and removal of a caveat identified reasonably clear error.' 'Whether the proposed appeal from the refusal of a stay of the writ of possession and the gross sum costs order identified arguable error.' 'Whether the amended notice of motion should be dismissed.']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants were significantly out of time, gave no adequate explanation for the delay, and failed to identify any fairly arguable or reasonably clear error in the winding up order, the discontinuance order, the possession and caveat orders, the refusal of a stay, or the costs orders. Accordingly, an extension of time for leave to appeal was refused, leave-related relief was dismissed, and the amended notice of motion was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Extension of time refused; amended summons seeking leave to appeal dismissed; amended notice of motion dismissed; applicants ordered to pay the liquidator's costs in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Refuse an extension of time for leave to appeal.' 'Dismiss the amended summons seeking leave to appeal filed 15 June 2023.' 'Dismiss the amended notice of motion filed 14 June 2023.' "The applicants pay the liquidator's costs in this Court."]