BURRELL v CAMERON [1998] NSWCA 47

The application for extension of time is refused because the explanations for the delay are inadequate, there is little prospect the appeal would succeed (the file note would make no difference; it is doubtful fresh evidence; and the Burrells are arguably bound by issue estoppel from Bryson J's findings), making the potential appeal hopeless and futile.

Parties: Claimant: Robert Leslie Burrell; Claimant: Joan Margaret Burrell; Respondent: Cameron
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 02 March 1998
Procedural Posture: Motion to Extend Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Interlocutory Application
Outcome: notice of motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics: Extension of Time to Appeal, Fresh Evidence, Issue Estoppel

Civil Procedure Extension of Time to Appeal Fresh Evidence Issue Estoppel

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2

Parties

Robert Leslie Burrell

Claimant

Joan Margaret Burrell

Claimant

Cameron

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Motion to Extend Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal Determination of Interlocutory Application

Legal Issues

1 Whether the time to appeal from Windeyer J's decision should be extended
2 Whether the file note constituted fresh evidence justifying extension of time
3 Whether issue estoppel arises from Bryson J's findings

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

notice of motion dismissed with costs

Orders

Notice of motion is dismissed with costs.