Dal Piva v Maynard No. Scciv-00-655 Summary

DAL PIVA v MAYNARD
[2001] SASC 39

Full Court: Doyle CJ, Duggan and Williams JJ
(Leave to Appeal in Private)

1................ DOYLE CJ, DUGGAN AND WILLIAMS JJ. This is an application for leave to appeal against the decision of Gray J given on 2 November 2000.

Gray J upheld an appeal to this Court against the inadequacy of a sentence imposed by the Magistrates Court. He set aside the sentence and substituted a new sentence.
The Court is unanimously of the opinion that an arguable case has been made out, and that the case is an appropriate one for a grant for leave to appeal.
Gray J refused leave to appeal. The application to the Full Court pursuant to Rule 94.02, for leave to appeal, should have been made by Friday, 29 January 2001. The application was not made until Wednesday, 31 January 2001. The affidavit filed by the applicant’s solicitors, in support of the application for leave to appeal, did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The Court called for a further affidavit. That affidavit provides an explanation for the delay, although it is an explanation which indicates some inefficiency on the part of the solicitors for the applicant. There is no reason to think that the delay is the fault of the applicant himself. It should also be said that the further affidavit highlights the unsatisfactory and inadequate nature of the first affidavit filed in support of the application for an extension of time. That affidavit implies that the delay was attributable to a delay within the Court, whereas the further affidavit makes it plain that the delay was attributable to the conduct of the solicitors.
Nevertheless, in view of the relatively short delay, and because the applicant is not at fault, the Court is prepared to extend the time for the making of the application.
Accordingly, the order of the Court is that time for the making of the application be extended to 31 January 2001, and that the applicant be granted leave to appeal against the decision of Gray J.
I direct that the applicant and the respondent be provided with a copy of these reasons.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Dal Piva v Maynard, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the decision of Gray J, who had substituted a new sentence in place of an inadequate sentence previously imposed by the Magistrates Court. The case came before the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, comprising Doyle CJ, Duggan, and Williams JJ. The primary issue before the Court was whether an arguable case had been made out for an appeal and if the application was appropriate for leave to appeal, despite a delay in filing the application and a lack of satisfactory explanation for that delay.

The Full Court recognised that the application for leave to appeal was not made within the required time frame, and the initial affidavit provided an inadequate explanation for the delay. However, the Court acknowledged that the delay was due to the inefficiency of the applicant's solicitors rather than the applicant himself. The Court was prepared to overlook the short delay and the unsatisfactory nature of the initial affidavit due to the absence of fault on the part of the applicant. Consequently, the Court granted leave to appeal against the decision of Gray J.

The Court's decision was based on the relatively short delay in filing the application, the lack of fault on the part of the applicant, and the fact that the applicant's solicitors had provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in their further affidavit. The Court extended the time for the making of the application to 31 January 2001 and granted leave to appeal against the decision of Gray J. The Court also directed that the applicant and the respondent be provided with a copy of the reasons for the decision.

Dal Piva v Maynard No. Scciv-00-655

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established