Despot v Registrar General [2012] NSWCA 160

Despot v Registrar General [2012] NSWCA 160

The Court extended time because UCPR r 51.16(2) provided power to do so, the appellant gave a sufficient explanation for the delay in the absence of demonstrated prejudice caused by that delay, the amount at stake could not safely be reduced to $71,404, and the proposed appeal, including against Mr Carbone, was not shown to be hopeless. In all the circumstances the interests of justice required an extension of time to 21 February 2012.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
04 June 2012
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal / Court of Appeal Application Concerning Notice of Appeal Filed Out of Time From Judgment and Orders of Macready AJ
Outcome
Time for filing and service of the notice of appeal extended to 21 February 2012; costs of the application reserved.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'prospects of Success' 'delay and Prejudice' 'fiduciary Duty' 'knowing Assistance' 'negligence' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'quantum Meruit']
['civil Procedure' 'appeals' 'equity' 'torts' 'consumer Law' 'building and Construction'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'prospects of Success' 'delay and Prejudice' 'fiduciary Duty' 'knowing Assistance' 'negligence' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'quantum Meruit']

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

Interlocutory Application for Extension of Time to File and Serve Notice of Appeal / Court of Appeal Application Concerning Notice of Appeal Filed Out of Time From Judgment and Orders of Macready AJ

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the time for filing and serving the notice of appeal should be extended to 21 February 2012.' 'Whether the power to extend time was provided by UCPR r 51.16(2), UCPR r 51.9(1)(b), or s 63 of the Civil Procedure Act 2005.' "Whether the appellant's delay in filing a notice of intention to appeal and notice of appeal was sufficiently explained." 'Whether the respondents suffered prejudice by reason of the delay.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success, including as against Dominic Carbone.' 'Whether the monetary amount at stake in the appeal involving Roy Maalouf and Sky Constructions was sufficient to warrant an extension of time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court extended time because UCPR r 51.16(2) provided power to do so, the appellant gave a sufficient explanation for the delay in the absence of demonstrated prejudice caused by that delay, the amount at stake could not safely be reduced to $71,404, and the proposed appeal, including against Mr Carbone, was not shown to be hopeless. In all the circumstances the interests of justice required an extension of time to 21 February 2012.

Court Disposition

Time for filing and service of the notice of appeal extended to 21 February 2012; costs of the application reserved.

Orders

  • ['Time for the filing and service of the notice of appeal be extended to 21 February 2012.' 'Costs of the application to extend time be reserved.']