Giurina v Owners Corporation
Case
•
[2013] VSC 39
•18 February 2013
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Giurina v Owners Corporation [2013] VSC 39
[2013] VSC 39
18 February 2013
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the case of Giurina v Owners Corporation, the applicant sought to appeal against a costs order made by an Associate Judge. The matter was heard by the Supreme Court of New South Wales, with the court having to decide whether an extension of time to appeal should be granted. The legal issues involved interpreting the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court Act 1986 and the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, and applying the principles established in Gallo v Dawson and Simonsen v Legge.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the requirement for leave to appeal to be sought within 28 days of the order in question, as per section 17A(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. It also considered Rule 77.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, which provides for the court to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the extension. The court weighed the principles established in Gallo v Dawson and Simonsen v Legge, which emphasise the importance of the court exercising its discretion to extend time where there are exceptional circumstances, but also caution against the automatic granting of extensions.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time to appeal. It noted that the applicant had not acted with due diligence in seeking leave to appeal and had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court concluded that the application to extend time should be refused, and that the principles in Gallo v Dawson and Simonsen v Legge did not apply in the circumstances of this case. The court emphasised that while it is prepared to exercise its discretion to extend time in appropriate cases, it must do so sparingly and only where there are truly exceptional circumstances.
No orders were made in relation to the application to extend time. The applicant was required to pay the respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
The court examined the relevant statutory provisions and case law, including the requirement for leave to appeal to be sought within 28 days of the order in question, as per section 17A(2)(b) of the Supreme Court Act 1986. It also considered Rule 77.06 of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2005, which provides for the court to extend the time for seeking leave to appeal if it is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances justifying the extension. The court weighed the principles established in Gallo v Dawson and Simonsen v Legge, which emphasise the importance of the court exercising its discretion to extend time where there are exceptional circumstances, but also caution against the automatic granting of extensions.
The court found that the applicant had not demonstrated exceptional circumstances warranting an extension of time to appeal. It noted that the applicant had not acted with due diligence in seeking leave to appeal and had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court concluded that the application to extend time should be refused, and that the principles in Gallo v Dawson and Simonsen v Legge did not apply in the circumstances of this case. The court emphasised that while it is prepared to exercise its discretion to extend time in appropriate cases, it must do so sparingly and only where there are truly exceptional circumstances.
No orders were made in relation to the application to extend time. The applicant was required to pay the respondent's costs of the application, to be taxed if not agreed.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Limitation Periods
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Bahl Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sikandar [2025] VSC 394
Cases Citing This Decision
18
Bahl Enterprises Pty Ltd v Sikandar
[2025] VSC 394
Concrete Construction Systems Pty Ltd v Inglese
[2024] VSC 266
Giurina v Deak
[2018] VSC 409
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Mikhail v The State of Western Australia
[2010] WASC 238
R v Shannon
[2007] VSCA 243
Kallitsas v Emerson Finance Pty Ltd
[2008] VSC 180