Blackman v Leppard (No. 3)

In *Blackman v Leppard (No. 3)*, the Supreme Court of Western Australia considered an interpleader claim arising from a Property Seizure and Sale Order. The original dispute involved an underpayment of wages claim brought by Mr Blackman against Mr Leppard, which resulted in court orders for payment. When these orders were not complied with, a Property Seizure and Sale Order was issued. Ms Leppard then made an interpleader claim, asserting ownership of the property that had been seized under the order.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether Ms Leppard's interpleader claim had any prospect of success, and consequently, whether an extension of time should be granted for her to file an affidavit in support of her claim. The Court was required to assess the merits of Ms Leppard's claim to the seized property against the enforcement of Mr Blackman's judgment.

Judge Lucev applied the principles governing interpleader claims, which require the claimant to demonstrate a *prima facie* case or a serious question to be tried. The Court considered the evidence presented by Ms Leppard regarding her ownership of the seized goods. In determining whether to grant an extension of time, the Court weighed the applicant's reasons for the delay against any prejudice to the respondent and the overall justice of the case. The Court found that Ms Leppard had not established a sufficient prospect of success for her interpleader claim to warrant an extension of time.

Consequently, the Court dismissed Ms Leppard's application for an extension of time and refused to grant leave to proceed with the interpleader claim. The Property Seizure and Sale Order in favour of Mr Blackman was therefore permitted to proceed.