PM Developments Pty Ltd v Omiros Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1090

PM Developments Pty Ltd v Omiros Pty Ltd [2005] FCA 1090

The motion was dismissed because the Federal Magistrates Court order was interlocutory, raised no estoppel, and could be revisited, so there was no utility in the proposed appeal or the application for enlargement of time. Alternatively, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, giving only a bare assertion of ill health and inability to contact a director without sufficient detail.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
23 May 2005
Procedural Posture
Application for Enlargement of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal / Notice of Motion From Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application to Change Venue
Outcome
Motion dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'change of Venue' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'federal Magistrates Court Procedure']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'change of Venue' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'federal Magistrates Court Procedure']

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 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Enlargement of Time to Apply for Leave to Appeal and for Leave to Appeal / Notice of Motion From Interlocutory Judgment of the Federal Magistrates Court Dismissing an Application to Change Venue

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be enlarged for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal from the Federal Magistrates Court judgment' 'Whether leave to appeal should be granted from an interlocutory judgment dismissing an application to change venue' 'Whether there was utility in an appeal where the venue order was interlocutory, created no estoppel, and could be revisited' 'Whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for delay']

Ratio Decidendi

The motion was dismissed because the Federal Magistrates Court order was interlocutory, raised no estoppel, and could be revisited, so there was no utility in the proposed appeal or the application for enlargement of time. Alternatively, the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay, giving only a bare assertion of ill health and inability to contact a director without sufficient detail.

Court Disposition

Motion dismissed with costs

Orders

  • ['The motion, the subject of the notice of motion filed on 22 March 2005, be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the motion."]