Thijeel v Liu [2021] NSWCATAP 185

Thijeel v Liu [2021] NSWCATAP 185

Leave to extend time was refused because the appeal was lodged significantly out of time, the appellant gave no proper explanation for the delay, and he had no proper basis to obtain leave to appeal. The proposed evidence was available before the original decision and was not significant new evidence, the appellant alleged no error of law, and refusal to extend time would not work an injustice.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
24 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Appeal to the Appeal Panel From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision / On the Papers; Preliminary Consideration of Extension of Time to Lodge the Notice of Appeal and Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to extend time to lodge the Notice of Appeal refused; appeal dismissed.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fresh Evidence' 'finality Principle']
['civil Procedure' 'consumer and Commercial' 'appeals'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'substantial Miscarriage of Justice' 'fresh Evidence' 'finality Principle']

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

Appeal to the Appeal Panel From a Consumer and Commercial Division Decision / On the Papers; Preliminary Consideration of Extension of Time to Lodge the Notice of Appeal and Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether leave should be granted to extend time to lodge the Notice of Appeal.' 'Whether the appellant had a fairly arguable case for leave to appeal.' "Whether the appellant's proposed additional evidence was significant new evidence not reasonably available at the time of the original proceedings." 'Whether refusal to extend time would work an injustice.']

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to extend time was refused because the appeal was lodged significantly out of time, the appellant gave no proper explanation for the delay, and he had no proper basis to obtain leave to appeal. The proposed evidence was available before the original decision and was not significant new evidence, the appellant alleged no error of law, and refusal to extend time would not work an injustice.

Court Disposition

Leave to extend time to lodge the Notice of Appeal refused; appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • ['Leave to extend time to lodge the Notice of Appeal is refused.' 'Appeal dismissed']