Azure 10-16 Marquet Street Rhodes Pty Ltd v Lau
Case
•
[2012] NSWCA 299
•14 September 2012
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Azure 10-16 Marquet Street Rhodes Pty Ltd v Lau [2012] NSWCA 299
[2012] NSWCA 299
14 September 2012
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Azure 10-16 Marquet Street Rhodes Pty Ltd (the applicant) sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against an order of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The respondent, Mr Lau, opposed the application.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file its application for leave to appeal. This required the Court to consider the applicant's reasons for the delay and whether there was a sufficient prospect of success on the substantive appeal.
Barrett JA dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient reason for the significant delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. His Honour also indicated that there was no apparent matter of principle involved in the proposed appeal that would warrant the granting of an extension of time. The Court applied the principles governing extensions of time, which require a demonstration of both good reason for the delay and a reasonably arguable case on appeal.
The application for an extension of time was dismissed with costs.
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to file its application for leave to appeal. This required the Court to consider the applicant's reasons for the delay and whether there was a sufficient prospect of success on the substantive appeal.
Barrett JA dismissed the application, noting that the applicant had not demonstrated a sufficient reason for the significant delay in filing the application for leave to appeal. His Honour also indicated that there was no apparent matter of principle involved in the proposed appeal that would warrant the granting of an extension of time. The Court applied the principles governing extensions of time, which require a demonstration of both good reason for the delay and a reasonably arguable case on appeal.
The application for an extension of time was dismissed with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Procedural Fairness
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0