Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1206

Sallehpour v Frontier Software Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1206

The extension of time was refused because, although the delay was not great, the draft notice of appeal was wholly inadequate and did not disclose any grounds with the slightest prospects of success; the applicant was unable to articulate any arguable basis for an appeal, so futility weighed strongly against granting an extension.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
26 August 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Application Dismissed
Outcome
Applicant's motion dated 18 August 2005 dismissed; application for extension of time dismissed; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'defective Notice of Appeal' 'futility' 'natural Justice' 'bias' 'termination of Employment for Alleged Prohibited Reasons']
['appellate Procedure' 'employment Law'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'defective Notice of Appeal' 'futility' 'natural Justice' 'bias' 'termination of Employment for Alleged Prohibited Reasons']

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 to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Application Dismissed

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgment of Marshall J given on 15 March 2005.' 'Whether the proposed appeal disclosed any arguable grounds or prospects of success.' 'Whether allegations of denial of natural justice, denial of a fair hearing and bias were adequately particularised.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because, although the delay was not great, the draft notice of appeal was wholly inadequate and did not disclose any grounds with the slightest prospects of success; the applicant was unable to articulate any arguable basis for an appeal, so futility weighed strongly against granting an extension.

Court Disposition

Applicant's motion dated 18 August 2005 dismissed; application for extension of time dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ["The applicant's motion dated 18 August 2005, appended to his affidavit of that date, be dismissed." 'The application for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be dismissed.' 'There be no order as to costs.']