Gemstar Co Pty Ltd v Barwicks Wisewoulds Summary

[2000] QCA 269

COURT OF APPEAL

McPHERSON JA
THOMAS JA
MULLINS J

Appeal No 5336 of 2000

GEMSTAR CORPORATION PTY LTD Applicant (Applicant)

and

BARWICKS WISEWOULDS Respondent(Respondent)

BRISBANE

..DATE 10/07/2000

JUDGMENT

McPHERSON JA: This is an application to extend the time for lodging an appeal against a decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court in a matter involving a costs agreement between a solicitor and a client.

If the question in this case turned upon whether or not there was a point of law which would attract our attention, or indeed any question of concern to the practitioners or the community in general, I very much doubt if I would be prepared to grant leave to appeal in this case.

But it is not a case of that kind. It is a case in which the only question is whether the late filing of a notice of appeal should be overlooked. The delay involved is that of about one or two working days at most and I think in the circumstances we should grant the extension of time within which to lodge this appeal on terms of course that the applicant, whose fault it is, should pay the respondent’s costs of this application.

THOMAS JA: I agree.

MULLINS J: I agree.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal in Gemstar Co Pty Ltd v Barwicks Wisewoulds concerns an application to extend the time for lodging an appeal against a decision of a Judge of the Supreme Court, which involved a costs agreement between a solicitor and a client. The applicant, Gemstar Co Pty Ltd, sought an extension of time to lodge an appeal against the decision made by the Supreme Court Judge, while the respondent, Barwicks Wisewoulds, opposed the extension. The case was heard by the Court of Appeal, with McPherson J, Thomas JA, and Mullins J presiding.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the late filing of a notice of appeal should be overlooked. The applicant argued that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was minimal, amounting to only one or two working days, and thus should be excused. The respondent, on the other hand, opposed the extension, contending that the delay should not be permitted. The Court had to consider whether the minimal delay warranted granting the extension and, if so, what conditions should be attached to the extension.

The Court of Appeal granted the extension of time to lodge the appeal, with the condition that the applicant, Gemstar Co Pty Ltd, pay the respondent's costs of the application. McPherson J, Thomas JA, and Mullins J were of the opinion that the minimal delay of one or two working days did not justify refusing the extension, especially since it was the applicant's fault. The Court emphasised that the case did not involve any significant point of law or concern to the practitioners or the community in general, but solely focused on whether the late filing of the notice of appeal should be overlooked. As a result, the Court found it appropriate to grant the extension on terms that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

Gemstar Co Pty Ltd v Barwicks Wisewoulds

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established