Intellec Development Group Pty Ltd v 3D Funtimes Ltd [2011] FCA 797

Intellec Development Group Pty Ltd v 3D Funtimes Ltd [2011] FCA 797

The extension of time was granted because the applicant's mistake about the filing date was accepted and the issue was not pressed by the respondent. Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant raised sufficient doubt on a question of fact and law concerning whether an equitable estoppel or set-off could be relied on where the alleged repayment obligation had not yet arisen, and because the potential injustice if leave were refused warranted leave. The stay application was dismissed because the respondent's undertaking adequately addressed the position pending appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
30 May 2011
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment, and Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory Applications
Outcome
Extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted; stay application dismissed on the respondent's undertaking; costs reserved.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'summary Judgment' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'equitable Set Off' "unpaid Seller's Lien"]
['practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'summary Judgment' 'stay Pending Appeal' 'equitable Set Off' "unpaid Seller's Lien"]

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, Leave to Appeal From an Interlocutory Judgment, and Stay Pending Appeal / Interlocutory Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time until 13 May 2011 to seek leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of Siopis J pronounced on 21 April 2011.' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the refusal to set aside summary judgment.' "Whether a stay pending appeal should be granted or the application dismissed on the respondent's undertaking."]

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was granted because the applicant's mistake about the filing date was accepted and the issue was not pressed by the respondent. Leave to appeal was granted because the applicant raised sufficient doubt on a question of fact and law concerning whether an equitable estoppel or set-off could be relied on where the alleged repayment obligation had not yet arisen, and because the potential injustice if leave were refused warranted leave. The stay application was dismissed because the respondent's undertaking adequately addressed the position pending appeal.

Court Disposition

Extension of time granted; leave to appeal granted; stay application dismissed on the respondent's undertaking; costs reserved.

Orders

  • ['The applicant be granted an extension of time until 13 May 2011 in which to seek leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of the Court pronounced by Justice Siopis on 21 April 2011 at Perth in WAD 348 of 2010.' 'The applicant have leave to appeal from the interlocutory judgment of the Court pronounced by...