28 Careel Developments Pty Ltd & S.O.S Plumbing Services (Qld) Pty Ltd; 28 Careel Developments Pty Ltd & P.E.T Services (Aust.) Pty Ltd

The two appeals concerned applications to set aside a default judgment. In the first appeal, 28 Careel Developments Pty Ltd and S.O.S Plumbing Services (Qld) Pty Ltd were the applicants, and in the second appeal, 28 Careel Developments Pty Ltd and P.E.T Services (Aust.) Pty Ltd were the applicants. Both appeals were heard in the District Court of Queensland. The primary issue before the court was whether leave should be granted to extend the time to file the notice of appeal or the notice of leave to appeal, and if so, whether the appeals should be allowed.

The applicants sought to set aside a default judgment obtained against them by their respective respondents. However, the notices of appeal and applications for leave to appeal were filed outside the statutory time limit. The applicants argued that the court should grant leave to extend the time to file the notices due to various reasons, including errors by their legal representatives and misunderstandings about the time limits. The court had to determine whether the applicants' circumstances justified an extension of time and, if so, whether the appeals should proceed.

The court held that in the first appeal, the applicants' circumstances warranted granting leave to extend the time to file the notice of appeal. However, the court dismissed the appeal because the applicants did not demonstrate a reasonable prospect of success in setting aside the default judgment. The court also noted that the amount claimed was under the minor civil dispute limit, which influenced the decision. In the second appeal, the court refused to grant leave to extend the time to file the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. The court found that the applicants' reasons for the delay were not sufficiently compelling to warrant an extension of time.

The court's orders included granting leave to extend the time to file the notice of appeal in the first appeal but dismissing the appeal. In the second appeal, the court refused leave to extend the time to file the application for leave to appeal and dismissed the application for leave to appeal. Both applicants were also granted leave to file and serve any submissions on costs by a specified date.