Woodhouse v Thalis [2017] NSWSC 1725

Woodhouse v Thalis [2017] NSWSC 1725

Although the delay in commencing the Supreme Court proceedings was relatively short, the plaintiff gave no cogent explanation for filing out of time and the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Tribunal's dismissal of the proceedings was a discretionary decision made in response to repeated adjournment applications on questionable bases, failures to comply with Tribunal orders and failure to prosecute the proceedings. There was no basis to conclude that the Tribunal erred or that its discretion miscarried so as to raise any question of law.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
15 December 2017
Procedural Posture
Application for an Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal Against a Decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Supreme Court Determination of Extension of Time Application
Outcome
The application for an extension of time was refused and the proceedings were dismissed, with costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'procedural Defaults' 'adjournment' 'self Represented Litigant']
['practice and Procedure' 'administrative Law'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal From NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal' 'appeal on Question of Law' 'procedural Defaults' 'adjournment' 'self Represented Litigant']

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 an Extension of Time in Which to Seek Leave to Appeal Against a Decision of the NSW Civil and Administrative Tribunal / Supreme Court Determination of Extension of Time Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the plaintiff to seek leave to appeal against the Tribunal's decision." 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success to justify an extension of time.' "Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the plaintiff's proceedings after repeated adjournment applications, procedural defaults and failures to comply with orders." "Whether the plaintiff's adjournment application before the Supreme Court should be granted."]

Ratio Decidendi

Although the delay in commencing the Supreme Court proceedings was relatively short, the plaintiff gave no cogent explanation for filing out of time and the proposed appeal had no prospects of success. The Tribunal's dismissal of the proceedings was a discretionary decision made in response to repeated adjournment applications on questionable bases, failures to comply with Tribunal orders and failure to prosecute the proceedings. There was no basis to conclude that the Tribunal erred or that its discretion miscarried so as to raise any question of law.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time was refused and the proceedings were dismissed, with costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time is refused.' 'The proceedings are dismissed.' 'The question of costs of the proceedings is reserved.' 'Absent reaching any agreement as to costs, the parties are to file written submissions with my Associate by Friday 2 February 2018, such submissions not to exceed two...