Ibrahim v Considine Architect [2008] FCA 1819

Ibrahim v Considine Architect [2008] FCA 1819

The appellant provided no explanation for the delay in instituting appellate proceedings, and there was no reasonable prospect that leave to appeal would be granted because the decision below was not attended with sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The primary judge was clearly correct that the respondent was not a corporation or body corporate, and the alleged representations were not made in trade and commerce.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
01 December 2008
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment of a Federal Magistrate / On Appeal From a Federal Magistrate; Notice of Appeal Treated as Application for Leave to Appeal and Filed Out of Time
Outcome
Application for an extension of time for leave to appeal refused; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'trade or Commerce' 'corporation or Body Corporate']
['practice and Procedure' 'trade Practices'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Appeal' 'interlocutory Judgment' 'misleading and Deceptive Conduct' 'trade or Commerce' 'corporation or Body Corporate']

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 Extension of Time for Leave to Appeal From Interlocutory Judgment of a Federal Magistrate / On Appeal From a Federal Magistrate; Notice of Appeal Treated as Application for Leave to Appeal and Filed Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the appellant should be granted an extension of time to seek leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment.' 'Whether leave to appeal would likely be granted, including whether the decision below was attended with sufficient doubt and whether substantial injustice would result if leave were refused.' "Whether the appellant's proposed appeal had merit in relation to findings that the respondent was not a corporation or body corporate and that the alleged representations were not made in trade or commerce."]

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant provided no explanation for the delay in instituting appellate proceedings, and there was no reasonable prospect that leave to appeal would be granted because the decision below was not attended with sufficient doubt and no substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The primary judge was clearly correct that the respondent was not a corporation or body corporate, and the alleged representations were not made in trade and commerce.

Court Disposition

Application for an extension of time for leave to appeal refused; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • ['The application for an extension of time for leave to appeal be refused.' 'There will be no order as to costs.']