Bartercard Ltd v Windjar Pty Limited [2000] NSWIRComm 270

Bartercard Ltd v Windjar Pty Limited [2000] NSWIRComm 270

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant did not provide an acceptable explanation for filing 55 days out of time, its contention that responsibility rested solely with external legal representatives was not made out given the involvement of its in-house lawyers, the proposed appeal had extremely limited prospects of success because Justice Glynn's conclusions and orders were open to her, and the whole circumstances, including the history of the proceedings and conduct of the parties, did not support granting the extension as a matter of justice between the parties.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
29 November 2000
Procedural Posture
Application to Extend Time to Appeal, Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against a Decision of Justice Glynn Given on 31 July 2000 in Matter No IRC 1514 of 1998 / Application for Extension of Time in Which to File an Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for extension of time dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the application.
Legal Topics
['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'unfair Contracts' 'costs']
['industrial Relations' 'practice and Procedure'] ['extension of Time to Appeal' 'leave to Appeal' 'unfair Contracts' 'costs']

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

Application to Extend Time to Appeal, Leave to Appeal and Appeal Against a Decision of Justice Glynn Given on 31 July 2000 in Matter No IRC 1514 of 1998 / Application for Extension of Time in Which to File an Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether Bartercard Ltd should be granted an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal.' 'Whether the applicant provided an acceptable explanation for the 55 day delay.' 'Whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success.' 'Whether, having regard to all relevant circumstances including the history of the proceedings and the conduct of the parties, justice between the parties supported extending time.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application for an extension of time was dismissed because the applicant did not provide an acceptable explanation for filing 55 days out of time, its contention that responsibility rested solely with external legal representatives was not made out given the involvement of its in-house lawyers, the proposed appeal had extremely limited prospects of success because Justice Glynn's conclusions and orders were open to her, and the whole circumstances, including the history of the proceedings and conduct of the parties, did not support granting the extension as a matter of justice between the parties.

Court Disposition

Application for extension of time dismissed; applicant ordered to pay respondent's costs of the application.

Orders

  • ['The application for extension of time is dismissed.' "The applicant Bartercard Ltd, pay the respondent Windjar Pty Limited's costs of the application to extend time, including costs of the proceedings before the Court on 2 November and 29 November 2000."]