Keep reading for free
Create a free CaseChat account to read Borelli v Marketing and Services Pty Ltd and more:
- Read every judgment in full
- Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
- See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
- Download judgments as PDF or Word
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
Details
- Case
- [2005] WADC 176
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The matter involved an appeal from a decision of the Registrar in the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, who dismissed an application for summary judgment made by the appellant, Borelli, against the respondent, Marketing and Services Pty Ltd. Borelli sought to appeal the Registrar's decision, however, the appeal was filed outside the required time limit. Additionally, Borelli appealed the Registrar's decision to allow an amendment to the statement of claim, which Borelli argued was vague and embarrassing. The court had to determine whether the appeal was filed in a timely manner, and if not, whether there were any adequate reasons for the delay. The court also had to assess whether the appeal had any arguable merits and if the amendment to the statement of claim was permissible.
The court found that the appeal was not filed within the required time frame and that there were no adequate reasons for the delay. Furthermore, the court found that Borelli did not have an arguable case on the merits of the appeal, and therefore, refused leave to extend the time for filing the appeal. In relation to the amendment of the statement of claim, the court found that the amendment was vague and embarrassing, and granted the appeal on this issue. The court held that the Registrar should not have allowed the amendment, and that the appeal was successful in this regard.
The court dismissed the appeal in respect of the Registrar's decision to dismiss the application for summary judgment. However, the appeal from the Registrar's decision to allow the amendment to the statement of claim was granted. The court held that the amendment was not permissible and should not have been allowed. The court did not make any further orders, and the matter was resolved on the basis of the appeal's success in relation to the amendment of the statement of claim.
The court found that the appeal was not filed within the required time frame and that there were no adequate reasons for the delay. Furthermore, the court found that Borelli did not have an arguable case on the merits of the appeal, and therefore, refused leave to extend the time for filing the appeal. In relation to the amendment of the statement of claim, the court found that the amendment was vague and embarrassing, and granted the appeal on this issue. The court held that the Registrar should not have allowed the amendment, and that the appeal was successful in this regard.
The court dismissed the appeal in respect of the Registrar's decision to dismiss the application for summary judgment. However, the appeal from the Registrar's decision to allow the amendment to the statement of claim was granted. The court held that the amendment was not permissible and should not have been allowed. The court did not make any further orders, and the matter was resolved on the basis of the appeal's success in relation to the amendment of the statement of claim.
Orders
Orders of the court
Leave to appeal refused in respect of Registrar's dismissal of application for
summary judgment
Appeal from Registrar's decision to allow amendment of statement of claim
granted
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.