Thomas v O'Neill [2013] NSWCA 23

Thomas v O'Neill [2013] NSWCA 23

The applicant's application was filed about twenty months out of time, no adequate explanation for the delay was given, and none of the matters raised disclosed an arguable basis for resisting the s 66G application or appealing the consent orders appointing trustees for sale. The extension of time was therefore refused and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 February 2013
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal Against Consent Orders Appointing Trustees for Sale and Application for Extension of Time / Court of Appeal Application Dismissed
Outcome
Application for extension of time refused and application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'consent Orders' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'co Owned Property' 'conveyancing Act S 66 G']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'property Law' 'equity and Trusts'] ['leave to Appeal' 'extension of Time' 'consent Orders' 'appointment of Trustees for Sale' 'co Owned Property' 'conveyancing Act S 66 G']

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

Application for Leave to Appeal Against Consent Orders Appointing Trustees for Sale and Application for Extension of Time / Court of Appeal Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time of about twenty months to file and serve an application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the applicant had identified an arguable basis for appeal against consent orders appointing trustees for sale.' "Whether allegations concerning the trustees, ownership of the property, mediation, discovery, subpoenas, or the conduct of the applicant's solicitor provided a basis to challenge the appointment of trustees for sale."]

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's application was filed about twenty months out of time, no adequate explanation for the delay was given, and none of the matters raised disclosed an arguable basis for resisting the s 66G application or appealing the consent orders appointing trustees for sale. The extension of time was therefore refused and leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time refused and application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['Application for leave to appeal against the appointment of the trustees for sale and the application for an extension of time in which to file and serve that application be dismissed with costs.' 'Exhibit B may be returned to applicant.']