Denmeade v Stingray Boats [2004] FCA 1503

Denmeade v Stingray Boats [2004] FCA 1503

The slip-rule amendment made on 24 September 2004 corrected a non-contentious omission in the orders of 15 September 2004 and spoke from the date of the original orders, so the 21-day appeal period ran from 15 September 2004 and an extension of time was required. The applicant did not establish special reasons or a proper basis for extending time: his affidavit misstated the position, the proposed appeal would not benefit him, it would only seek to alter the agreement between Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd and Stingray Boats, and its prospects of success were nil.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
18 November 2004
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve a Notice of Appeal / Post Judgment Application
Outcome
Application refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'slip Rule' 'retrospective Effect of Amended Orders' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'distribution of Proceeds of Sale of Vessel']
['practice and Procedure' 'appeals' 'admiralty and Maritime'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'slip Rule' 'retrospective Effect of Amended Orders' 'prospects of Success on Appeal' 'distribution of Proceeds of Sale of Vessel']

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 / Post Judgment Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant required an extension of time to file and serve a notice of appeal from the judgment pronounced on 15 September 2004.' 'Whether the slip-rule amendment made on 24 September 2004 affected the time for filing and serving a notice of appeal.' 'Whether special reasons or sufficient grounds justified granting an extension of time.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had prospects of success where success would benefit Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd rather than the applicant.']

Ratio Decidendi

The slip-rule amendment made on 24 September 2004 corrected a non-contentious omission in the orders of 15 September 2004 and spoke from the date of the original orders, so the 21-day appeal period ran from 15 September 2004 and an extension of time was required. The applicant did not establish special reasons or a proper basis for extending time: his affidavit misstated the position, the proposed appeal would not benefit him, it would only seek to alter the agreement between Esanda Finance Corporation Ltd and Stingray Boats, and its prospects of success were nil.

Court Disposition

Application refused.

Orders

  • ['The application filed 25 October 2004 for extension of time within which to appeal the judgment of Justice Spender of 15 September 2004 is refused.' 'The applicant pay to Stingray Boats costs fixed in the sum of $100, those costs to be payable forthwith.']