Wilmink as Trustee for the Bangarra Trust v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2014] FCA 889

Wilmink as Trustee for the Bangarra Trust v Westpac Banking Corporation (No 2) [2014] FCA 889

The extension of time was refused because the respondent had filed submissions by the directed date, the applicants had not sought an extension before the reply deadline, the applicants had filed extensive initial submissions, the agreed procedure was determination on the papers, the proposed reply was limited to...

Source-derived case information.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
19 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Extension of Time to File Written Submissions in Reply / Reasons for Judgment and Order on the Applicants' Application
Outcome
The applicants' application for an extension of time was refused.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time' 'written Submissions' 'determination on the Papers' 'procedural Fairness']
['civil Procedure'] ['extension of Time' 'written Submissions' 'determination on the Papers' 'procedural Fairness']

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application for Extension of Time to File Written Submissions in Reply / Reasons for Judgment and Order on the Applicants' Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file reply submissions after the directed date had passed.' 'Whether the timetable for written submissions denied the applicants procedural fairness.']

Ratio Decidendi

The extension of time was refused because the respondent had filed submissions by the directed date, the applicants had not sought an extension before the reply deadline, the applicants had filed extensive initial submissions, the agreed procedure was determination on the papers, the proposed reply was limited to two pages, judgment had been prepared and notified for delivery, and no adequate reason was given for the late request or for Mr Paalvast's non-appearance.

Court Disposition

The applicants' application for an extension of time was refused.

Orders

  • ["The applicants' application for an extension of time to file their written submissions in reply be refused."]