16 Jul 2020
The Court granted the extension of time because the 12 working day delay was short, there was a reasonable explanation (COVID-19 related filing confusion), the delay caused no prejudice to respondents, and the proposed appeal could not be said to be hopeless; accordingly, in the interests of justice an extension under r 29A was appropriate.
27 Jun 2017
Electronic transmission timestamps control for determining the statutory 'date' of filing under the Act; an originating application electronically received on 3 April 2017 (even after 5 pm but before midnight) is to be treated as filed on 3 April 2017; a supporting affidavit, if missing, is a defect but does not render the originating application outside the statutory timeframe; consequently the Court accepted the five Phoenix Law applications and Mr Shenton's application for filing and upheld the Registrar's rejection of Mr Watkins' application which had been filed with the Crown rather than…
30 Aug 2012
Because the applicants sought costs on a 2B basis with quantified amounts, and the plaintiff failed to file any costs submissions despite being given time, the Court awarded costs to the third and fourth defendants on the 2B scale with the disbursements claimed.
12 Jul 2012
The application for extension of time was granted because the appeal was filed only three days late, the applicants advanced good reasons for the short delay, the appeal had prospective merit and there was no identified prejudice to the respondent after weighing the enumerated factors under the applicable rule and authorities.
7 Oct 2011
The Court granted the extension of time sought under r 43 because the respondents did not oppose the application and the application was properly made; the first appellant was ordered to file and serve the case on appeal by 12 October 2011.
22 Sept 2008
The 21 day period for filing an application for leave under s162 commenced the day after the District Court decision (31 May 2008) and expired on 20 June 2008; the applicant's filing was received after that date (23 June 2008) so it was out of time and the Court has no jurisdiction to consider the substantive application for leave.