Di Carlo v Dubois

In the matter of Di Carlo v Dubois, the applicant, Mr Di Carlo, sought an extension of time to appeal against two separate judgments that had been made against him. The first appeal, numbered 1388 of 2006, concerned a dismissal of Mr Di Carlo's action against the respondents, while the second appeal, numbered 3622 of 2007, pertained to the dismissal of a subsequent action brought by Mr Di Carlo to set aside the judgment on the basis of fraud. Both appeals were dismissed, and the High Court declined to grant special leave to appeal. Now, Mr Di Carlo sought a further appeal, relying on fresh evidence.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant Mr Di Carlo an extension of time to appeal against the judgments. The court considered whether Mr Di Carlo's application for an extension was made within a reasonable time and whether the fresh evidence he presented was sufficient to warrant an extension. Additionally, the court needed to determine whether Mr Di Carlo's claim in the second appeal, which was based on an allegation of fraud, was viable and if it warranted an extension of time.

The court concluded that Mr Di Carlo's applications for an extension of time were not made within a reasonable time, as the applications were filed several years after the respective judgments were made. The court also found that the fresh evidence presented by Mr Di Carlo did not warrant an extension, as it did not provide a compelling reason for the delay. Furthermore, the court held that the claim in the second appeal was not viable, as the allegations of fraud were not substantiated. Therefore, the court refused both applications for an extension of time and ordered Mr Di Carlo to pay the respondents' costs on the indemnity basis.