Hall v Carney - [2021] SASCA 41

Supreme Court of South Australia
(Court of Appeal: Civil)
HALL v CARNEY & ORS
[2021] SASCA 41
Judgment of the Honourable Justice Livesey (ex tempore)
15 January 2021

PROCEDURE - CIVIL PROCEEDINGS IN STATE AND TERRITORY COURTS - COSTS - INTERLOCUTORY PROCEEDINGS - EXTENSION OF TIME
By an interlocutory application dated 17 December 2020, the applicant seeks an extension of the times specified by the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) for the filing of the documents and appeal book required in connection with the appeal that he commenced on 19 November 2020 against an order barring him from pursuing notified claims pursuant to s 29(2) of the Trustee Act 1936 (SA). Those claims concern the applicant's mother's estate.
The application was not made until these various appeal materials were due. By his application, the applicant seeks an extension until at least one month after the trial in "the District Court Case 1369 of 2017", set down in the week beginning 8 February 2021.
Held, granting an extension of time, more limited than that which was sought:
1.      The applicant’s obligation to file a list of authorities and a chronology is suspended until      further order.
2.      The respondents will prepare, file and serve a core appeal book.
3.      The applicant is granted an extension of time until 29 January 2021 to prepare, file and serve        his outline of argument.

HALL v CARNEY & ORS
[2021] SASCA 41
Court of Appeal – Civil
Livesey JA:

By an interlocutory application dated 17 December 2020, the applicant seeks an extension of the times specified by the Uniform Civil Rules 2020 (SA) for the filing of the documents and appeal book required in connection with the appeal that he commenced on 19 November 2020 against an order barring him from pursuing notified claims pursuant to s 29(2) of the Trustee Act 1936 (SA).[1] Those claims concern the applicant's mother's estate.
[1] See Hall v Carney (No3) (2020) SASC 177 (Stanley J).
The application was not made until these various appeal materials were due. By his application, the applicant seeks an extension until at least one month after the trial in “the District Court Case 1369 of 2017”, set down in the week beginning 8 February 2021. The applicant asks that the costs of the application be paid out of his mother's estate.
The applicant gives as his primary reasons for needing an extension of time the fact that he is concurrently involved in two sets of complex litigation and that he suffers from chronic ill-health that limits his capacity to work other than part‑time on this litigation.
Whilst the Court is not unsympathetic to the effects of the applicant's treatment for his prostate cancer, presently in remission, it must be said that, first, he has been experiencing these effects for some years and, secondly, there is no medical evidence in the last six months or so regarding the applicant's condition. It may or may not have stayed the same, it may or may not…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Continue reading Hall v Carney

Details

AGLC: Hall v Carney [2021] SASCA 41
Case: [2021] SASCA 41
Decision Date: 15 January 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In *Hall v Carney*, the applicant sought an extension of time in relation to interlocutory proceedings concerning civil procedure and costs. The matter came before Livesey Ex Tempore J.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time for certain procedural obligations, specifically the filing of a list of authorities and a chronology, and the preparation and filing of an outline of argument. The court also considered the preparation and filing of a core appeal book by the respondents.

Livesey Ex Tempore J granted an extension of time, though more limited than that sought by the applicant. The court ordered that the applicant's obligation to file a list of authorities and a chronology be suspended until further order. Furthermore, the respondents were directed to prepare, file, and serve a core appeal book. The applicant was granted an extension of time until 29 January 2021 to prepare, file, and serve his outline of argument.

Orders

Orders of the court

Held, granting an extension of time, more limited than that which was sought:

1. The applicant’s obligation to file a list of authorities and a chronology is suspended until further order.

2. The respondents will prepare, file and serve a core appeal book.

3. The applicant is granted an extension of time until 29 January 2021 to prepare, file and serve his outline of argument.

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.