Capewell v Garrod [1999] NSWCA 285

Capewell v Garrod [1999] NSWCA 285

The Court refused the extension of time because the District Court judge had merely exercised a discretion, no issue of principle was shown, the claimant already had the requested material and information, and the proposed appeal was futile as the claimant accepted that a further application by the opponent for leave to commence out of time would probably be successful.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
05 August 1999
Procedural Posture
Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Proceedings; Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From District Court Order Dismissing Strike Out Application
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['motor Accidents Act 1988 S 48 Particulars' 'motor Accidents Act 1988 S 52 Leave to Commence Action' 'application Commenced Out of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'strike Out Application' 'discretionary Decision']
['motor Accidents' 'personal Injury' 'civil Procedure'] ['motor Accidents Act 1988 S 48 Particulars' 'motor Accidents Act 1988 S 52 Leave to Commence Action' 'application Commenced Out of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'strike Out Application' 'discretionary Decision']

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

Motor Vehicle Accident Personal Injury Proceedings; Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From District Court Order Dismissing Strike Out Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for filing a summons seeking leave to appeal.' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the District Court's refusal to strike out the statement of claim for alleged breaches of s 48 of the Motor Accidents Act 1988."]

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused the extension of time because the District Court judge had merely exercised a discretion, no issue of principle was shown, the claimant already had the requested material and information, and the proposed appeal was futile as the claimant accepted that a further application by the opponent for leave to commence out of time would probably be successful.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time for filing a summons for leave to appeal is refused with costs.']