Maytom v Prentice (No 2) [2013] FCA 502

Maytom v Prentice (No 2) [2013] FCA 502

The Court refused a further extension because, despite accepting the applicant's account of losing his court papers and considering his ill health, the applicant had had sufficient time after obtaining replacement documents, had not provided a draft notice of appeal, appeared to seek to go beyond the procedural fairness ground previously permitted, and the default judgment underlying the sequestration order remained on foot.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 May 2013
Procedural Posture
Practice and Procedure – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court / Interlocutory Application Filed on 10 May 2013 for a Further Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal
Outcome
The interlocutory application filed on 10 May 2013 was dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'notice of Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'federal Court Rules']
['practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'notice of Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'federal Court Rules']

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

Practice and Procedure – Application for Extension of Time to Appeal From the Federal Magistrates Court / Interlocutory Application Filed on 10 May 2013 for a Further Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted a further extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether the circumstances relied on by the applicant justified non-compliance with the earlier deadline of 7 May 2013.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court refused a further extension because, despite accepting the applicant's account of losing his court papers and considering his ill health, the applicant had had sufficient time after obtaining replacement documents, had not provided a draft notice of appeal, appeared to seek to go beyond the procedural fairness ground previously permitted, and the default judgment underlying the sequestration order remained on foot.

Court Disposition

The interlocutory application filed on 10 May 2013 was dismissed.

Orders

  • ["The Applicant's application for an extension of time in which to file and serve a Notice of Appeal be dismissed."]