Solomons Franchise Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Taydex Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 551

Solomons Franchise Systems Pty Ltd & Ors v Taydex Pty Ltd & Ors [1995] FCA 551

Leave to appeal was refused because Drummond J's judgment was not attended with sufficient doubt and it would not be unjust to deny leave, given the unexplained authorisation problem, the inadequate explanation of financial dealings between Taydex Pty Ltd and Oxgold Pty Ltd, the fact that any further evidence could and should have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence, and the possibility of a fresh properly supported application.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
27 July 1995
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal an Interlocutory Order and for an Extension of Time Within Which to Apply for Leave / Ex Tempore Reasons on Applications Arising From Drummond J's Order of 8 June 1995 Refusing Mr Parr's Application to Appear for Taydex Pty Ltd
Outcome
The applications were dismissed.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order' 'extension of Time' 'company Representation' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'costs']
['practice and Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal Interlocutory Order' 'extension of Time' 'company Representation' 'fresh Evidence on Appeal' 'costs']

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 Leave to Appeal an Interlocutory Order and for an Extension of Time Within Which to Apply for Leave / Ex Tempore Reasons on Applications Arising From Drummond J's Order of 8 June 1995 Refusing Mr Parr's Application to Appear for Taydex Pty Ltd

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for Mr Parr to apply for leave to appeal from the interlocutory order of Drummond J.' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the order refusing Mr Parr's application to appear for Taydex Pty Ltd." "Whether Drummond J's judgment was attended with sufficient doubt and whether injustice would follow if leave were refused." 'Whether any further explanation of accounts between Taydex Pty Ltd and Oxgold Pty Ltd could support an appeal or fresh evidence application.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because Drummond J's judgment was not attended with sufficient doubt and it would not be unjust to deny leave, given the unexplained authorisation problem, the inadequate explanation of financial dealings between Taydex Pty Ltd and Oxgold Pty Ltd, the fact that any further evidence could and should have been produced earlier with reasonable diligence, and the possibility of a fresh properly supported application.

Court Disposition

The applications were dismissed.

Orders

  • ['The applications be dismissed.' "The second respondent pay the applicants' costs of the applications." 'The applicants be at liberty to tax their bill of costs immediately.']