HART v CASHMAN & EVERINGHAM [2010] NSWCA 5

HART v CASHMAN & EVERINGHAM [2010] NSWCA 5

The application for extension of time was refused because none of the proposed grounds of appeal had realistic prospects of success; critical adverse findings on causation and credibility made by the trial judge could not be overturned; the applicant could not prove he had PTSD in 1980; and the respondents would suffer prejudice if proceedings were allowed to continue given the applicant’s impecuniosity and the long passage of time.

Parties
Appellant: Barry Francis Hart; Respondents: Peter Cashman and Roland Everingham t/as Cashman & Partners
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
09 February 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Application for Review of Registrar’s Refusal to Extend Time for Appeal
Outcome
Application for review dismissed; no extension of time granted.
Legal Topics
Appeal, Extension of Time, Professional Negligence, Prejudice, Prospects of Success
Practice and Procedure Appeal Extension of Time Professional Negligence Prejudice Prospects of Success

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Barry Francis Hart

Appellant

Peter Cashman and Roland Everingham t/as Cashman & Partners

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / Application for Review of Registrar’s Refusal to Extend Time for Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal judgment for professional negligence against his former solicitors
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal have prospects of success
  3. 3 Whether prejudice to the respondents and the unusual circumstances affect the discretion to grant extension

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because none of the proposed grounds of appeal had realistic prospects of success; critical adverse findings on causation and credibility made by the trial judge could not be overturned; the applicant could not prove he had PTSD in 1980; and the respondents would suffer prejudice if proceedings were allowed to continue given the applicant’s impecuniosity and the long passage of time.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed; no extension of time granted.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s notice of motion of 31 July 2009 is dismissed with costs.