Gilles v Palmieri

Case [2016] NSWCA 219


Court of Appeal


Supreme Court


New South Wales

Medium Neutral Citation: Gilles v Palmieri [2016] NSWCA 219
Hearing dates:19 July 2016
Decision date: 23 August 2016
Before: Basten JA at [1];
Leeming JA at [2];
Sackville AJA at [41]
Decision:

1. Grant leave to appeal.

 

2. Dispense with the requirements to file and serve a notice of appeal.

 

3. Appeal allowed in part.

 

4. Set aside order 5 made on 4 December 2015, and in lieu thereof order that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings (including the costs of the notices of motion filed on 16 September 2015 and 27 October 2015).

 

5. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

 6. The appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal (including the application for leave to appeal).
Catchwords: PROCEDURE – service of originating process – extension of time – statement of liquidated claim filed almost six years after tax invoices had been rendered – service not effected until some nine months later – primary judge refused to grant an extension of time for service – whether primary judge failed to give reasons – whether primary judge erred in considering there was no power to extend time, or in the exercise of discretion – whether on appeal an order should be made extending time in circumstances where there had not been a full explanation for the delay, and aspects of the explanation were unsatisfactory
Legislation Cited: Civil Procedure Act 2005 (NSW), ss 56, 57, 58, 59
District Court Act 1973 (NSW), s 47
Legal Profession Act 1987 (NSW)
Legal Profession Act 2004 (NSW), s 355
Limitation Act 1969 (NSW)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW), rr 1.12, 6.2
Cases Cited: ACES Sogutlu Holdings Pty Ltd (in liq) v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 402; 89 NSWLR 209
AK v Western Australia [2008] HCA 8; 232 CLR 438
Arthur Andersen Corporate Finance Pty Ltd v Buzzle Operations Pty Ltd (in liq) [2009] NSWCA 104
Laurie v Carroll (1958) 98 CLR 310
Pritchard v DJZ Constructions Pty Ltd [2012] NSWCA 413
Wakim v Coleman [2010] NSWCA 221
Weston in Capacity as Special Purpose Liquidator of One.Tel Ltd (in liq) v Publishing and Broadcasting Ltd [2012] NSWCA 79; 88 ACSR 80
Category:Principal judgment
Parties: Joseph John Gilles (First Applicant)
Gregory George Eliades (Second Applicant)
Vince Palmieri (First Respondent)
DJZ Constructions Pty Ltd (Second Respondent)
Representation:

Counsel:
IE Davidson SC, L Hulmes (Applicants)
BM Green (Respondents)

  Solicitors:
Giles Payne & Co (Applicants)
Navado Lawyers (Respondents)
File Number(s):2015/377399
Publication restriction:Nil
 Decision under appeal 
Court or tribunal:
District Court of New South Wales
Jurisdiction:
Civil Jurisdiction
Date of Decision:
4 December 2015
Before:
Gibb DCJ
File Number(s):
2014/350058

Judgment

  1. BASTEN JA: I agree with Leeming JA.

  2. LEEMING JA: For the reasons which follow, the decision of the primary judge to refuse to extend the time for service of a statement of claim is vitiated by a series of errors. However, I have concluded that, even so, it…

Continue reading Gilles v Palmieri

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Gilles v Palmieri [2016] NSWCA 219
Case
[2016] NSWCA 219
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Gilles v Palmieri*, the New South Wales Court of Appeal considered an appeal from a primary judge's refusal to grant an extension of time for service of a statement of liquidated claim. The claim was filed almost six years after tax invoices were rendered, and service was not effected until approximately nine months after filing. The appellants, the plaintiffs in the original proceedings, argued that the primary judge erred in refusing the extension, either by failing to provide adequate reasons or by misapprehending the scope of the court's power to extend time, or by exercising discretion incorrectly.

The central legal issues before the Court of Appeal were whether the primary judge had erred in law by failing to give sufficient reasons for the refusal to extend time, whether the primary judge had wrongly concluded that there was no power to extend time, or whether the primary judge had exercised their discretion on incorrect principles. The Court also had to consider whether, in the circumstances of the appeal, it should grant an extension of time for service, notwithstanding the lack of a full explanation for the significant delay and unsatisfactory aspects of the explanation provided.

The Court of Appeal found that the primary judge had not erred in law by failing to give reasons, nor had they wrongly concluded that there was no power to extend time. However, the Court determined that the primary judge had erred in the exercise of discretion. While acknowledging the unsatisfactory explanation for the delay, the Court allowed the appeal in part, setting aside the primary judge's order regarding costs and ordering that the plaintiffs pay the defendants' costs of the original proceedings. The appeal was otherwise dismissed, with the appellants ordered to pay the respondents' costs of the appeal.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Grant leave to appeal.

2. Dispense with the requirements to file and serve a notice of appeal.

3. Appeal allowed in part.

4. Set aside order 5 made on 4 December 2015, and in lieu thereof order that the plaintiffs pay the defendants’ costs of the proceedings (including the costs of the notices of motion filed on 16 September 2015 and 27 October 2015).

5. Otherwise dismiss the appeal.

6. The appellants pay the respondents’ costs of the appeal (including the application for leave to appeal).

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.