Barataud v Chipperfield (No 3) [2006] NSWIRComm 249

Barataud v Chipperfield (No 3) [2006] NSWIRComm 249

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant showed no error in Boland J's discretionary refusal to extend time, no real denial of natural justice arose where the appellant had been served with originating process but failed to enter an appearance, arrange mail redirection or notify a change of address, and the...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 August 2006
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal Arising From S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 Proceedings / Full Bench Application for Leave to Appeal Against Boland J's Refusal to Extend Time to Appeal Staff J's Decision
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused; appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'unfair Contracts' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']
['industrial Law' 'civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'unfair Contracts' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'procedural Fairness' 'jurisdiction' 'abuse of Process' 'costs']

Source-derived case record

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 Leave to Appeal and Appeal Arising From S 106 Industrial Relations Act 1996 Proceedings / Full Bench Application for Leave to Appeal Against Boland J's Refusal to Extend Time to Appeal Staff J's Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether leave should be granted to appeal Boland J's refusal to extend time to appeal Staff J's orders." 'Whether Boland J erred in exercising the discretion to refuse an extension of time to appeal.' 'Whether the ex parte hearing before Staff J involved denial of natural justice where the appellant had been served with originating process but did not enter an appearance or notify a change of address.' 'Whether a jurisdictional argument concerning the share purchase agreement provided a basis for leave to appeal, having regard to s 106(2A) of the Industrial Relations Act 1996.' "Whether continued non-compliance with Staff J's orders affected the application for leave to appeal."]

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the appellant showed no error in Boland J's discretionary refusal to extend time, no real denial of natural justice arose where the appellant had been served with originating process but failed to enter an appearance, arrange mail redirection or notify a change of address, and the jurisdictional argument concerning the share purchase agreement had little prospect of success given s 106(2A) and the appellant's own evidence that the payment was related to the agency agreement. The appellant's continued non-compliance with Staff J's orders and the absence of evidence supporting alleged bankruptcy consequences further undermined the application.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused; appellant ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.' "Mr Barataud is ordered to pay Mr Chipperfield's cost of the proceedings, as agreed or assessed."]