Etl v Kliger Partners [2008] FCA 602
The applicant provided no argument or evidence suggesting the trial judge erred in discretion or that substantial injustice would occur if leave were refused. No doubt attends the interlocutory decision, and there is no basis for enlargement of time or leave to appeal.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 30 April 2008
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Decision
- Outcome
- application dismissed
- Legal Topics
- ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'sequestration Order' 'adjournment' 'exercise of Discretion']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Interlocutory Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Should the applicant be granted an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from an interlocutory judgment?' 'Does the refusal of an adjournment warrant leave to appeal?' 'Was there substantial injustice to the applicant?']
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant provided no argument or evidence suggesting the trial judge erred in discretion or that substantial injustice would occur if leave were refused. No doubt attends the interlocutory decision, and there is no basis for enlargement of time or leave to appeal.
Court Disposition
application dismissed
Orders
- ["The applicant's application for an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal be refused." 'The costs of Geoffrey Kliger, Aitan Schmideg, Roger Elliot Rothfield, David Brown, Andrew Suddick, Glenys Jardine, Savas Miriklis and Robert Lewis of and incidental to the motion be costs in the bankruptcy.'...
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment