Beil v Mansell (No 1)

Case [2006] QCA 173


SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Beil & Anor v Mansell & Ors [2006] QCA 173

PARTIES:

DESMOND THOMAS BEIL
(plaintiff/respondent)
DAJAD PTY LTD
(ACN 009 979 284)
(plaintiff/respondent)
v
NEIL RAYMOND MANSELL
(fourth defendant/first applicant)
FAY CATHERINE MANSELL
(fifth defendant/second applicant)
PARKLANDS BLUE METAL PTY LTD
(ACN 010 471 548)
(ninth defendant/third applicant)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 3655 of 2006
SC No 1494 of 2001

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/ General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

26 May 2006

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

16 May 2006

JUDGES:

Jerrard JA, Helman and Muir JJ
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the order made.

ORDER:

Application dismissed with costs.

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL – where applicants seek leave to appeal – where first instance judgment given two years prior to filing of application – whether leave to appeal should be granted

Uniform Civil Procedure Rules1999 (Qld), r 748

Alec Lobb (Garages) Ltd v Total Oil (GB) Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 173, cited
AMEV-UDC Finance Ltd v Austin (1986) 162 CLR 170, distinguished
Andar Transport Pty Ltd v Brambles Ltd (2004) 217 CLR 424, cited
Ankar Pty Ltd & Anor v National Westminster Finance (Aust) Ltd (1987) 162 CLR 549, cited
Australian Broadcasting Commission v Australasian Performing Rights Association Ltd (1973) 129 CLR 99, cited
Brooks v Burns Philp Trustee Co Ltd (1969) 121 CLR 432, cited
Chan v Cresdon (1989) 168 CLR 242, cited
Chapman v State of Queensland [2003] QCA 172; Appeal No 1759 of 2003, 17 December 1998, cited
Coghlan v SH Lock (Aust) Ltd (1987) 8 NSWLR 88, cited
Davies v Perpetual Trustee [1959] 2 All ER 128, cited
D’Orta-Ekenaike v Victoria Legal Aid (2005) 79 ALJR 755, applied
O’Callaghan v Hall & Anor [1993] QCA 297, cited
Queensland Trustees Ltd v Fawckner [1964] Qd R 153, cited
Wren v Emmett Contractors Pty Ltd
(1969) 43 ALJR 213, cited

COUNSEL:

L F Kelly SC, with him G R Coveney, for the applicants
M D Martin for the respondents

SOLICITORS:

CBD Lawyers & Corporate Advisors for the applicant
North Coast Law for the respondents

  1. JERRARD JA:  In this application I have read the reasons for judgment of Muir J and the orders proposed by His Honour, and respectfully agree with those reasons and orders, and adopt his description of the relevant facts.  I add that the fact that the first applicant Neil Mansell had personally signed the Deed, dated 8 September 2004, signing as a Director of Pacific View (Qld) Pty Ltd, left open against that applicant an argument based on Wren v Emmett Contractors Pty Ltd.[1]  The argument is that if that applicant as a controlling director of that company arranged…

Continue reading Beil v Mansell (No 1)

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Beil v Mansell (No 1) [2006] QCA 173
Case
[2006] QCA 173
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Beil v Mansell (No 1) is a case involving an application for leave to appeal a first instance judgment, where the application was made two years after the judgment was given. The applicant sought to appeal the decision, arguing that the trial judge had made errors in the application of the law. The appeal was brought before the court to determine whether the late filing of the application should prevent the court from granting leave to appeal.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the delay in filing the application for leave to appeal should preclude the court from considering the merits of the appeal. The court was required to balance the principles of finality and expedition in litigation against the need to ensure that justice is done in individual cases.

The court considered the general principles regarding the grant or refusal of extensions of time for appeals. It noted that while there is a strong presumption in favour of finality and expedition in litigation, there are exceptions where justice may require an extension of time. However, in this case, the court found that the delay was excessive and that there was no sufficient justification for the late filing of the application. The court held that the application for leave to appeal was made well beyond the reasonable time frame, and as such, the application was dismissed with costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

Application dismissed with costs.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.