May v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] FCA 1385

May v Vero Insurance Limited [2012] FCA 1385

The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because Mr May had not complied with the requirements for an extension application, there was no error shown in the primary Judge's conclusion that the Federal Court claims were an abuse of process given overlapping District Court proceedings, the proposed grounds had no substance, and there was no point extending time where leave to appeal would be refused.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
06 December 2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application Determined on the Papers Without an Oral Hearing
Outcome
The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal is refused.
Legal Topics
['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'vexatious and Oppressive Claims' 'procedural Fairness and Natural Justice']
['practice and Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Decision' 'extension of Time to Seek Leave to Appeal' 'abuse of Process' 'vexatious and Oppressive Claims' 'procedural Fairness and Natural Justice']

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 and Leave to Appeal / Application Determined on the Papers Without an Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal.' "Whether leave to appeal should be granted from the interlocutory decision striking out the applicant's pleadings as an abuse of process." 'Whether the primary Judge denied procedural fairness or natural justice, took irrelevant considerations into account, failed to consider written submissions, or made a material factual error.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was refused because Mr May had not complied with the requirements for an extension application, there was no error shown in the primary Judge's conclusion that the Federal Court claims were an abuse of process given overlapping District Court proceedings, the proposed grounds had no substance, and there was no point extending time where leave to appeal would be refused.

Court Disposition

The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time and leave to appeal is refused.' 'The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Respondent.']