KROEHNERT v BALL [1991] NSWCA 169

KROEHNERT v BALL [1991] NSWCA 169

Despite the delay, there are tenable arguments of law regarding duty of the defendant's solicitor; the appeal is not hopeless, and no relevant prejudice to the opponent is shown, thus extension of time is granted.

Parties
Claimant: Kroehnert; Opponent: Ball
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
08 April 1991
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal; Determination of Application
Outcome
extension of time granted
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure

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 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kroehnert

Claimant

Ball

Opponent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to Appeal / Court of Appeal; Determination of Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted
  2. 2 Whether delay in filing notice of appeal is justified

Ratio Decidendi

Despite the delay, there are tenable arguments of law regarding duty of the defendant's solicitor; the appeal is not hopeless, and no relevant prejudice to the opponent is shown, thus extension of time is granted.

Court Disposition

extension of time granted

Orders

  • Extension of time for filing notice of appeal granted
  • Notice of appeal to be filed no later than 4 pm Thursday 11 April 1991