John Trad v Cromwells Auctioneers [2003] NSWIRComm 381

John Trad v Cromwells Auctioneers [2003] NSWIRComm 381

The application to extend time was refused because the appeal should have been filed by 27 August 2003 but was not filed until 24 October 2003, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and his prospects of succeeding on appeal were slight having regard to the circumstances and merits...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 November 2003
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal and Appeal and to Extend Time Against Dismissal of Unfair Dismissal Claim / Application to Extend Time to Appeal
Outcome
Application to extend time to appeal refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'unfair Dismissal' 'want of Prosecution' 'failure to Appear' 'genuine Redundancy' 'protection of Injured Employees']
['industrial Relations' 'employment Law' 'appellate Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'unfair Dismissal' 'want of Prosecution' 'failure to Appear' 'genuine Redundancy' 'protection of Injured Employees']

Source-derived case record

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 and Appeal and to Extend Time Against Dismissal of Unfair Dismissal Claim / Application to Extend Time to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether time should be extended for the applicant to appeal against Commissioner O'Neill's decision dismissing his claim for want of prosecution." 'Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for filing the application for leave to appeal and appeal and the application to extend time outside the 21 day period.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application to extend time was refused because the appeal should have been filed by 27 August 2003 but was not filed until 24 October 2003, the applicant did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, and his prospects of succeeding on appeal were slight having regard to the circumstances and merits of the claim.

Court Disposition

Application to extend time to appeal refused.

Orders

  • ['The application by John Paul Trad in this matter to extend time to appeal is refused.']