Krishna v Lovett [2011] NSWCA 354

Krishna v Lovett [2011] NSWCA 354

The applicant has not demonstrated that the case is more than fairly arguable, nor that it has substantial merit required for an extension of time to appeal. The delay is egregious and the respondents have suffered prejudice. The summons seeking an extension of time is therefore dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 November 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application
Outcome
Summons dismissed
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'principles for Extension' 'trespass' 'consent']
['civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'principles for Extension' 'trespass' 'consent']

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 Appeal / Court of Appeal Decision on Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Should extension of time to appeal be granted after 17 months delay?' 'Does the proposed appeal have substantial merit beyond being only fairly arguable?']

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant has not demonstrated that the case is more than fairly arguable, nor that it has substantial merit required for an extension of time to appeal. The delay is egregious and the respondents have suffered prejudice. The summons seeking an extension of time is therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Summons dismissed

Orders

  • ["Applicant to pay respondents' costs" 'No indemnity costs awarded']