VICTOR JOHN FERGUSON v PAMELA STOTT [1996] NSWCA 183

VICTOR JOHN FERGUSON v PAMELA STOTT [1996] NSWCA 183

No error of principle or substantial question of principle was shown in the discretionary decision as to costs; insufficient prospects to justify granting extension of time or leave to appeal.

Parties
Applicant: Victor John Ferguson; Respondent: Pamela Stott
Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
11 March 1996
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Costs, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time
Civil Procedure Costs Leave to Appeal Extension of Time

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 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Victor John Ferguson

Applicant

Pamela Stott

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time and Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted from a discretionary judgment on costs
  2. 2 Whether extension of time to appeal should be allowed

Ratio Decidendi

No error of principle or substantial question of principle was shown in the discretionary decision as to costs; insufficient prospects to justify granting extension of time or leave to appeal.

Court Disposition

application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • Application for extension of time is dismissed with costs
  • Application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs