Taudevin v Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited and Another [2000] NSWIRComm 63

Taudevin v Egis Consulting Australia Pty Limited and Another [2000] NSWIRComm 63

Acceptable explanation was given for the delay in filing motions; no prejudice to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs; injustice would arise if extension not granted; the interests of justice require granting the applications for extension of time. It is inappropriate to file conditional appearances under the Commission's Rules.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
13 April 2000
Procedural Posture
Application Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Applications for Extension of Time to File Notices of Motion Challenging Jurisdiction
Outcome
Applications by both respondents for extension of time granted; costs order made against respondents.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'notice of Motion' 'conditional Appearance' 'jurisdictional Challenge' 'costs']
['industrial Law' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'notice of Motion' 'conditional Appearance' 'jurisdictional Challenge' 'costs']

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 Under S.106 of the Industrial Relations Act 1996 / Interlocutory Applications for Extension of Time to File Notices of Motion Challenging Jurisdiction

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the Court should grant an extension of time to the first and second respondents to file notices of motion under r 82 challenging jurisdiction' "Whether the procedure of filing a conditional appearance is permissible under the Commission's Rules" 'What principles apply to applications for extension of time in these circumstances']

Ratio Decidendi

Acceptable explanation was given for the delay in filing motions; no prejudice to the applicant that could not be compensated by costs; injustice would arise if extension not granted; the interests of justice require granting the applications for extension of time. It is inappropriate to file conditional appearances under the Commission's Rules.

Court Disposition

Applications by both respondents for extension of time granted; costs order made against respondents.

Orders

  • ['Grant the applications by the first and second respondents for an extension of time.' "Order that the first and second respondents pay the applicant's costs of the motions to extend time." 'Note that the first and second respondents accept an equal division of the costs as per the above order.']