Despot v Registrar General

Case [2012] NSWCA 160


Court of Appeal

New South Wales

Case Title: Despot v Registrar General
Medium Neutral Citation: [2012] NSWCA 160
Hearing Date(s): 21 May 2012
Decision Date: 04 June 2012
Jurisdiction:
Before:

Meagher JA

Decision:

(1) Time for the filing and service of the notice of appeal be extended to 21 February 2012.
(2) Costs of the application to extend time be reserved.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

Catchwords:

APPEAL - extension of time to file notice of appeal - relevant considerations - whether in interests of justice to extend time - UCPR, r 51.16

Legislation Cited:

Civil Procedure Act 2005
Fair Trading Act 1987
Home Building Act 1989
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules

Cases Cited:

Jackamarra v Krakouer [1998] HCA 27; (1998) 195 CLR 516
Tomko v Palasty (No. 2) [2007] NSWCA 369; (2007) 71 NSWLR 61

Texts Cited:
Category: Interlocutory applications
Parties:

Ranko Despot (Appellant)
Registrar General of New South Wales
(First Respondent)
Roy Maalouf (Second Respondent)
Stelli Pty Limited (Third Respondent)
St George Bank Limited (Fourth Respondent)
Dominic Carbone (Fifth Respondent)
Joyce Azzi (Sixth Respondent)
Sky Constructions Pty Limited (Seventh Respondent)

Representation
- Counsel:

Counsel:
G O'L Reynolds SC, J C Hewitt (Appellant)
Submitting appearance (First Respondent)
K D Ginges (Second and Seventh Respondents)
B J Gross QC, D J Williams (Third and Sixth Respondents)
P Dowdy (Fourth Respondent)
J C Kelly SC (Fifth Respondent)

- Solicitors:

Solicitors:
Mark Gallego (Appellant)
Gavin Bartier (First Respondent)
Spinks Eagle Lawyers (Second and Seventh Respondents)
Kheir Lawyers (Third and Sixth Respondents)
Henry Davis York (Fourth Respondent)
Colin Biggers & Paisley (Fifth Respondent)

File number(s):

2012/56421

Decision Under Appeal
- Court / Tribunal:
- Before: Macready AJ
- Date of Decision: 31 March 2011
- Citation: [2011] NSWSC 273
- Court File Number(s) 2009/2988692009/298832
Publication Restriction:

JUDGMENT

  1. MEAGHER JA: On 20 February 2012 the appellant (Mr Despot) filed a notice of appeal from a judgment and orders made by Macready AJ on 15 April 2011 and entered on 5 May 2011. That notice of appeal was filed out of time: UCPR r 51.16. The appellant had previously filed a notice of intention to appeal on 27 May 2011. That notice was also filed out of time: UCPR r 51.8. On 22 December 2011 the appellant filed a summons seeking leave to appeal from the judgment and orders of Macready AJ. It is now common ground that as the appeal involves a matter at issue of more than $100,000, leave to appeal is not required.

  2. The appellant seeks an order extending the time for the filing and service of the notice of appeal to 21 February 2012. The making of…

Continue reading Despot v Registrar General

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Despot v Registrar General [2012] NSWCA 160
Case
[2012] NSWCA 160
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Despot v Registrar General*, the applicant sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a decision of the Registrar General. The application was heard by Meagher JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.

The central legal issue before the Court was whether it was in the interests of justice to grant the applicant an extension of time to file the notice of appeal, pursuant to rule 51.16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW). This rule governs the extension of time for filing notices of appeal.

Meagher JA considered the relevant factors for determining whether to grant an extension of time. While the specific reasons for the delay and the merits of the proposed appeal are not detailed in the provided text, the Court's decision to grant the extension indicates that the applicant satisfied the criteria for demonstrating that it was in the interests of justice to permit the late filing. The Court applied the principles governing the exercise of discretion under rule 51.16, which typically involves balancing the applicant's reasons for delay against any prejudice to the respondent and the overall merits of the appeal.

The Court ordered that time for the filing and service of the notice of appeal be extended to 21 February 2012, with the costs of the application to extend time being reserved.

Orders

Orders of the court

(1) Time for the filing and service of the notice of appeal be extended to 21 February 2012.

(2) Costs of the application to extend time be reserved.

[Note: The Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 provide (Rule 36.11) that unless the Court otherwise orders, a judgment or order is taken to be entered when it is recorded in the Court's computerised court record system. Setting aside and variation of judgments or orders is dealt with by Rules 36.15, 36.16, 36.17 and 36.18. Parties should in particular note the time limit of fourteen days in Rule 36.16.]

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.