MICHAEL v MITSOPOULOS [1992] NSWCA 154

It is appropriate to allow the appeal to proceed because the delay in filing has not resulted in such prejudice as would justify refusing extension. The engineer should not be denied appeal rights due to the late filing, considering the circumstances.

Parties: Plaintiff: Michael; Engineer (defendant/cross Claimant): Mitsopoulos; Cross Defendant: Architect
Jurisdiction: Australia
Judgment Date: 20 July 1992
Procedural Posture: Application (motion) in Civil Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Cross Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal
Outcome: Appeal allowed to proceed; extension of time granted.
Legal Topics: Extension of Time, Appeal Procedure, Prejudice From Procedural Delay

Civil Procedure Extension of Time Appeal Procedure Prejudice From Procedural Delay

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 Party arguments 2

Parties

Michael

Plaintiff

Mitsopoulos

Engineer (defendant/cross Claimant)

Architect

Cross Defendant

Procedural Posture

Application (motion) in Civil Proceedings / Application to Strike Out Notice of Appeal and Cross Motion for Extension of Time to File Appeal

Legal Issues

1 Whether notice of appeal filed out of time should be struck out
2 Whether extension of time (nunc pro tunc) for filing notice of appeal should be granted

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to proceed; extension of time granted.

Orders

Notice of appeal filed on 23 June 1992 is deemed to have been filed within time.
Application to strike out the notice of appeal dismissed.