Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 246

Mendonca v Chan & Naylor (Parramatta) Pty Ltd [2016] NSWCA 246

The extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the proposed grounds were at best very weak, the delay of more than two years was extensive, and the appeal was inconsistent with the position the applicant had taken in intervening proceedings against his former lawyers, so that success would produce squarely inconsistent judgments.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 September 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal With Extension of Time / Court of Appeal Application From District Court of New South Wales Decisions Dated 12 and 27 June 2014
Outcome
Summons and notice of motion dismissed; application by Mr Gunning for costs dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the ordinary basis.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs' 'inconsistent Judgments' 'witness Credibility' 'onus to Call Witness']
['civil Procedure' 'employment' 'costs'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'indemnity Costs' 'inconsistent Judgments' 'witness Credibility' 'onus to Call Witness']

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 Leave to Appeal With Extension of Time / Court of Appeal Application From District Court of New South Wales Decisions Dated 12 and 27 June 2014

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should receive a substantial extension of time to seek leave to appeal from District Court judgments given more than two years earlier.' 'Whether the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficiently arguable to justify leave and an extension of time.' "Whether the proposed appeal would create judgments inconsistent with the applicant's intervening litigation against his former lawyers." 'Whether the respondent should receive indemnity costs and whether a non-party barrister should receive costs.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time and leave to appeal were refused because the proposed grounds were at best very weak, the delay of more than two years was extensive, and the appeal was inconsistent with the position the applicant had taken in intervening proceedings against his former lawyers, so that success would produce squarely inconsistent judgments.

Court Disposition

Summons and notice of motion dismissed; application by Mr Gunning for costs dismissed; applicant ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the ordinary basis.

Orders

  • ['Summons filed 8 July 2016 dismissed.' 'Notice of motion filed 8 August 2016 dismissed.' 'Application of Mr Gunning for costs dismissed.' "Applicant to pay the respondent's costs on the ordinary basis."]