Templeman v O’Sullivan [2016] NSWCATAP 18

Templeman v O’Sullivan [2016] NSWCATAP 18

The appellant was not denied procedural fairness as he was aware of the directions for filing evidence and had opportunities to present expert evidence prior to the hearing. The delay in filing the appeal was inadequately explained, and the new evidence he sought to admit was available before the original hearing. There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor grounds to admit fresh evidence or extend time to appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal and to extend time was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
21 January 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time Sought; Determination on Appeal
Outcome
appeal dismissed; leave to appeal out of time refused; leave to appeal refused
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'expert Evidence']
['civil Procedure' 'building and Construction'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'admissibility of Fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'procedural Fairness' 'expert Evidence']

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

Appeal / Leave to Appeal and Extension of Time Sought; Determination on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave to appeal out of time should be granted' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted' 'Whether fresh expert evidence should be admitted on appeal' 'Whether procedural fairness was denied' 'Whether the primary decision resulted in a substantial miscarriage of justice']

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not denied procedural fairness as he was aware of the directions for filing evidence and had opportunities to present expert evidence prior to the hearing. The delay in filing the appeal was inadequately explained, and the new evidence he sought to admit was available before the original hearing. There were no reasonable prospects of success on appeal, nor grounds to admit fresh evidence or extend time to appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal and to extend time was refused, and the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

appeal dismissed; leave to appeal out of time refused; leave to appeal refused

Orders

  • ['Leave to extend the time in which to appeal is refused' 'Leave to appeal is refused' 'The appeal is otherwise dismissed']