Paton v Orton [2014] NSWCATAP 104

Paton v Orton [2014] NSWCATAP 104

The appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in filing and was not specific about the further evidence to be filed; the respondent would suffer prejudice if the timetable was vacated; and the guiding principles and obligations of cooperation had not been met by the appellant. Leave to appeal and extension of time are therefore refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
10 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Internal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'filing of Evidence' 'adjournment']
['civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Orders' 'filing of Evidence' 'adjournment']

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

Internal Appeal / Interlocutory Appeal; Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted for appeal against an interlocutory decision refusing to extend the timetable to allow filing of evidence in reply' 'Whether extension of time to file the notice of appeal should be granted']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide sufficient reasons for the delay in filing and was not specific about the further evidence to be filed; the respondent would suffer prejudice if the timetable was vacated; and the guiding principles and obligations of cooperation had not been met by the appellant. Leave to appeal and extension of time are therefore refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to appeal is refused.']