Crossan v Utmission Pty Limited [2010] NSWCA 96

Crossan v Utmission Pty Limited [2010] NSWCA 96

Because the filing of the Notice of Cross-Appeal instead of a summons for leave to cross-appeal appeared to be a mistake, and because the respondent should not lose its right to seek leave to cross-appeal in those circumstances, time was extended, the Notice of Cross-Appeal was treated as a draft, and the summons and any cross-appeal were ordered to be heard concurrently with the appeal.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 May 2010
Procedural Posture
Procedural and Other Rulings / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling on Summons for Leave to Cross Appeal, Draft Notice of Cross Appeal, Concurrent Hearing and Directions
Outcome
Time extended and procedural orders made for the summons for leave to cross-appeal and any cross-appeal to proceed with the appeal; costs of the day to be costs in the summons for leave to cross-appeal.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'leave to Cross Appeal' 'notice of Cross Appeal' 'concurrent Hearing of Appeal and Cross Appeal' 'costs' 'civil Procedure Act Obligations']
['civil Procedure' 'appellate Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'leave to Cross Appeal' 'notice of Cross Appeal' 'concurrent Hearing of Appeal and Cross Appeal' 'costs' 'civil Procedure Act Obligations']

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

Procedural and Other Rulings / Court of Appeal Procedural Ruling on Summons for Leave to Cross Appeal, Draft Notice of Cross Appeal, Concurrent Hearing and Directions

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether time should be extended for filing the summons for leave to cross-appeal to 29 April 2010.' 'Whether the Notice of Cross-Appeal filed as though leave had been given should be treated as a draft Notice of Cross-Appeal.' 'Whether the summons for leave to cross-appeal and the cross-appeal, if leave is granted, should be heard concurrently with the appeal.' 'Whether further directions should be available from the Registrar.' 'How costs of the procedural motions should be dealt with.']

Ratio Decidendi

Because the filing of the Notice of Cross-Appeal instead of a summons for leave to cross-appeal appeared to be a mistake, and because the respondent should not lose its right to seek leave to cross-appeal in those circumstances, time was extended, the Notice of Cross-Appeal was treated as a draft, and the summons and any cross-appeal were ordered to be heard concurrently with the appeal.

Court Disposition

Time extended and procedural orders made for the summons for leave to cross-appeal and any cross-appeal to proceed with the appeal; costs of the day to be costs in the summons for leave to cross-appeal.

Orders

  • ['Extend time for the filing of the summons for leave to cross-appeal to 29 April 2010.' 'Order that the Notice of Cross-Appeal be treated as a draft Notice of Cross-Appeal provided to the Court.' 'Order that the summons for leave to cross-appeal and the cross-appeal should leave be granted be heard concurrently...