Teese v Clinch Neville Long [2003] FCA 274

Teese v Clinch Neville Long [2003] FCA 274

The extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal would clearly fail. The refusal of an adjournment was a supportable exercise of discretion; there was no error in not going behind the District Court judgment based on the costs assessment; the costs agreement permitted payment on termination of the retainer and did not support Ms Teese's asserted ground; and the 21 day stay of proceedings under the sequestration order did not prevent the respondents from notifying the Official Receiver or ITSA of the sequestration order, which they were required and ordered to do.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
28 March 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From a Federal Magistrates Court Bankruptcy Judgment / Single Judge Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'sequestration Order' 'adjournment' 'going Behind Judgment' 'costs Assessment' 'stay of Proceedings Under Sequestration Order']
['practice and Procedure' 'bankruptcy'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'special Reasons' 'sequestration Order' 'adjournment' 'going Behind Judgment' 'costs Assessment' 'stay of Proceedings Under Sequestration Order']

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 to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal From a Federal Magistrates Court Bankruptcy Judgment / Single Judge Exercising Appellate Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether special reasons existed to extend time to file and serve a notice of appeal under O 52 r 15 of the Federal Court Rules.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects, including challenges to refusal of an adjournment, failure to go behind a District Court judgment, the asserted costs agreement, and the effect of a 21 day stay after a sequestration order.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the proposed appeal would clearly fail. The refusal of an adjournment was a supportable exercise of discretion; there was no error in not going behind the District Court judgment based on the costs assessment; the costs agreement permitted payment on termination of the retainer and did not support Ms Teese's asserted ground; and the 21 day stay of proceedings under the sequestration order did not prevent the respondents from notifying the Official Receiver or ITSA of the sequestration order, which they were required and ordered to do.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time in which to file a notice of appeal be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondents' costs."]