Storehouse Managed Investments Limited v Perpetual Nominees Limited [2016] NSWCA 252

Storehouse Managed Investments Limited v Perpetual Nominees Limited [2016] NSWCA 252

The applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in seeking leave to appeal, and no relevant injustice was shown to arise if the extension of time was not granted. The applicant's submissions as to error by the primary judge were not substantiated by evidence, and the Court was...

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Applicant: Storehouse Managed Investments Limited; First Respondent: Perpetual Nominees Limited; Second Respondent: The Trust Company (Nominees) Limited
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
16 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Summons for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Indemnity Costs
Outcome
Extension of time for filing summons for leave to appeal refused; costs ordered on indemnity basis against applicant; applicant denied recourse to trust assets for these costs.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Leave to Appeal, Costs on Indemnity Basis
Civil Procedure Extension of Time Leave to Appeal Costs on Indemnity Basis

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Storehouse Managed Investments Limited

Applicant

Perpetual Nominees Limited

First Respondent

The Trust Company (Nominees) Limited

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time for Summons for Leave to Appeal / Court of Appeal Judgment on Application for Extension of Time and Indemnity Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an extension of time should be granted for filing summons for leave to appeal
  2. 2 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against the costs order and order refusing recourse to trust assets

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in seeking leave to appeal, and no relevant injustice was shown to arise if the extension of time was not granted. The applicant's submissions as to error by the primary judge were not substantiated by evidence, and the Court was not satisfied that the merits warranted the extension or that leave to appeal would, in any event, be granted. Accordingly, the extension of time was refused, and costs awarded on an indemnity basis.

Court Disposition

Extension of time for filing summons for leave to appeal refused; costs ordered on indemnity basis against applicant; applicant denied recourse to trust assets for these costs.

Orders

  • Refuse the application for extension of time for filing the summons for leave to appeal.
  • The applicant is to pay the respondents' costs of the proceedings in the Court of Appeal, being the summons seeking leave to appeal and the application for an extension of time in which to bring the summons, those costs to be paid on an indemnity basis.