Ebner & Pappas

The appellant, Ebner, sought to appeal orders made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales that set aside a contract for the sale of land to the second respondent, Pappas, and awarded costs against Ebner. The primary judge found that Ebner did not act reasonably in facilitating the transfer of the property and that Pappas was not a bona fide purchaser. The appeal also questioned whether the first respondent was a creditor and whether the proceedings were ‘proceedings under the Act’ for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court found that the primary judge did not err in setting aside the contract and in making the costs order. The appeal was considered to be without merit and, had leave to file a notice of appeal been granted, it would have been dismissed.

The appeal raised questions about the existence of an implicit obligation in the consent orders to act reasonably and the primary judge’s findings regarding Pappas’ status as a bona fide purchaser. The Court examined whether the first respondent was a creditor and whether the proceedings were ‘proceedings under the Act’ for the purposes of the Family Law Act 1975 (Cth). The Court held that the primary judge did not err in setting aside the contract for the sale of land, as Ebner did not act reasonably in facilitating the transfer. The Court also found that the primary judge did not err in making a costs order pursuant to the Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW). The Court concluded that the appeal was without merit and that, had leave to file a notice of appeal been granted, it would have been dismissed.

The Court dismissed the application for an extension of time to appeal the orders of 12 December 2013 and 17 March 2014. The delay in filing the appeal was not adequately explained, and there was no merit in the proposed grounds of appeal. The Court ordered that the parties file and serve written submissions as to costs, with the respondent’s submission to be filed within 28 days and the appellant’s submission to be filed within 56 days of the decision date.

The Court ordered that the application filed on 7 August 2014 seeking an extension of time to file an appeal from the orders of 12 December 2013 and 17 March 2014 be dismissed. The parties were required to file and serve written submissions as to costs, with the respondent’s submission to be filed within 28 days of the decision date and the appellant’s submission to be filed within 56 days of the decision date.