Barataud v Chipperfield [2006] NSWIRComm 131

Barataud v Chipperfield [2006] NSWIRComm 131

The application to extend time was refused because the applicant had been served with the summons and notice of the August 2005 mention, failed to file an appearance or attend, changed address without redirecting mail or notifying the Registrar, and later delayed after learning of the judgment. The asserted denial of natural justice lacked substance because the failure to receive later notices resulted from the applicant's own conduct. The history of the litigation and the applicant's disregard for legal process weighed against an extension, and the proposed appeal did not have sufficiently strong prospects to justify granting leave or extending time.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
20 April 2006
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Time for Leave to Appeal and to Appeal From Judgment and Orders in S 106 Unfair Contract Proceedings; Application for Stay / Application for Extension of Time and Stay After Ex Parte Judgment
Outcome
Application for extension of time for leave to appeal and appeal refused; stay application not considered.
Legal Topics
['unfair Contract' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'natural Justice' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'jurisdiction Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996']
['industrial Law' 'appellate Procedure' 'contract Law'] ['unfair Contract' 'extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'stay of Orders' 'natural Justice' 'ex Parte Proceedings' 'jurisdiction Under S 106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996']

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 to Extend Time for Leave to Appeal and to Appeal From Judgment and Orders in S 106 Unfair Contract Proceedings; Application for Stay / Application for Extension of Time and Stay After Ex Parte Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended under s 189 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 for the applicant to seek leave to appeal and appeal from Staff J's judgment and orders." 'Whether refusal to extend time would work an injustice having regard to the history of the proceedings, the conduct of the parties, the nature of the litigation and the consequences of granting or refusing the extension.' 'Whether the applicant was denied natural justice because he was not notified of the hearing date in the s 106 proceedings.' 'Whether the applicant had sufficient prospects of obtaining leave to appeal and succeeding on appeal, including on factual and jurisdictional grounds.' "Whether it was necessary to consider a stay of Staff J's judgment and orders."]

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time was refused because the applicant had been served with the summons and notice of the August 2005 mention, failed to file an appearance or attend, changed address without redirecting mail or notifying the Registrar, and later delayed after learning of the judgment. The asserted denial of natural justice lacked substance because the failure to receive later notices resulted from the applicant's own conduct. The history of the litigation and the applicant's disregard for legal process weighed against an extension, and the proposed appeal did not have sufficiently strong prospects to justify granting leave or extending time.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time for leave to appeal and appeal refused; stay application not considered.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal and appeal is refused.' "The applicant shall pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings in an amount as agreed or, if agreement cannot be reached, as assessed."]