Akhras v Watts Publishing Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 195

Akhras v Watts Publishing Australia and New Zealand Pty Ltd [2014] NSWCA 195

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of about eight years was unexplained, the material relied upon did not demonstrate a fairly arguable case, the judgment did not establish that the trial proceeded in the applicant's absence, later medical material could not justify reopening a once-and-for-all tort damages award, and significant prejudice to the respondents would result if the matter proceeded.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 June 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time Within Which to Appeal or Seek Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From District Court Judgment
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; summons and notice of appeal dismissed to the extent necessary; no order as to costs in this Court.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'notice of Appeal' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'fresh Evidence']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure' 'tort' 'personal Injury'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'notice of Appeal' 'contributory Negligence' 'assessment of Damages' 'fresh Evidence']

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 Within Which to Appeal or Seek Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Application From District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended to appeal or seek leave to appeal from the District Court judgment delivered on 6 December 2005.' 'Whether the applicant had a fairly arguable case based on alleged absence from trial and medical evidence not called at trial.' 'Whether later medical deterioration could justify reopening the assessment of damages.' 'Whether prejudice to the respondents supported refusal of the extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for extension of time was refused because the delay of about eight years was unexplained, the material relied upon did not demonstrate a fairly arguable case, the judgment did not establish that the trial proceeded in the applicant's absence, later medical material could not justify reopening a once-and-for-all tort damages award, and significant prejudice to the respondents would result if the matter proceeded.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; summons and notice of appeal dismissed to the extent necessary; no order as to costs in this Court.

Orders

  • ['Dismiss the application for an extension of time within which either to appeal or to seek leave to appeal.' 'To the extent necessary to dispose of the proceedings, dismiss the summons and the notice of appeal.' 'No order as to costs in this Court.']