Hooper v Cockles Pty Ltd - [2025] WASCA 143

JURISDICTION     :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
TITLE OF COURT :   THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA)
CITATION:   HOOPER -v- COCKLES PTY LTD [2025] WASCA 143
CORAM:   VAUGHAN JA
HEARD:   ON THE PAPERS
DELIVERED          :   15 SEPTEMBER 2025
PUBLISHED           :   19 SEPTEMBER 2025
FILE NO/S:   CACV 60 of 2025
BETWEEN:   CHUNMEI GAO HOOPER
First Appellant
JIANYI LI
Second Appellant
AND
COCKLES PTY LTD
First Respondent
DARYL JOHN HENTHORN
Second Respondent
DAVYD CAMERON HOOPER
Third Respondent
HEBRON ADVISORY PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent
NORTH CITY ACCOUNTING (WA) PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent
NORTH CITY ACCOUNTING PTY LTD
Sixth Respondent
PHILIP GORDON HUME HOOPER
Seventh Respondent
WEI KENT TEO
Eighth Respondent

ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction              :   SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram:   WHITBY J
File Number            :   COR 186 of 2024

Catchwords:

Appeals - Practice and procedure - Extension to file appellant's case - Duty of legal practitioners to assist court in the attainment of the objects in O 1 r 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA) - Circumstances in which legal practitioners should agree extension to file appellant's case

Legislation:

Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 1 r 4A, O 1 r 4B, O 3 r 5

Result:

Extension of time allowed
No order as to costs

Category: B

Representation:

Counsel:

First Appellant	:	No appearance
Second Appellant	:	No appearance
First Respondent	:	No appearance
Second Respondent	:	No appearance
Third Respondent	:	No appearance
Fourth Respondent	:	No appearance
Fifth Respondent	:	No appearance
Sixth Respondent	:	No appearance
Seventh Respondent	:	No appearance
Eighth Respondent	:	No appearance

Solicitors:

First Appellant	:	LJR Legal
Second Appellant	:	LJR Legal
First Respondent	:	In Person
Second Respondent	:	[Redacted]
Third Respondent	:	[Redacted]
Fourth Respondent	:	In Person
Fifth Respondent	:	In Person
Sixth Respondent	:	In Person
Seventh Respondent	:	In Person
Eighth Respondent	:	In Person

Case(s) referred to in decision(s):

Billabong Gold Pty Ltd v Vango Mining Ltd [2022] WASCA 35

VAUGHAN JA:

These reasons deal with an application that should never have been necessary.
The appellants seek leave to appeal from certain costs orders made in the General Division of this court on 17 June 2025. The appeal notice was not filed until 25 July 2025. Accordingly, not only do the appellants require leave to appeal, they also require an extension of time to appeal. The appellant's case was due on 8 August 2025; it was not filed on time. The appellants applied for an extension of time to file and serve the appellant's case. On 27 August 2025 the acting Court of Appeal registrar ordered that the time for the appellants to file and serve the appellant's case be extended to 12 September 2025.
These reasons deal with the appellants' application in an appeal filed 12 September 2025 seeking a further extension of time to file and serve the appellant's case. The extension sought was one business day - from 12 September 2025 to 15 September 2025 (the intervening two…

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.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Hooper v Cockles Pty Ltd and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2025] WASCA 143
Decision Date: 19 SEPTEMBER 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case involved Hooper, the appellant, and Cockles Pty Ltd, the respondent. The dispute centred around an application by the appellant for an extension to file their case. The case was heard in the Supreme Court of Western Australia. The appellant argued that they needed more time to prepare their case due to complexities in the matter and the need for additional legal research. The respondent, however, opposed the extension, contending that the appellant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances warranting an extension.

The primary legal issue the court had to decide was whether the appellant's legal practitioners had adequately assisted the court in achieving the objectives outlined in Order 1 Rule 4B of the Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA). Specifically, the court had to consider the circumstances under which legal practitioners should agree to an extension to file an appellant's case. The court had to balance the need for the appellant to adequately prepare their case against the principles of judicial economy and finality of litigation.

In delivering the judgment, the court held that legal practitioners have a duty to assist the court in attaining the objectives of the rules. The court found that the appellant's legal practitioners had not adequately demonstrated the need for an extension. The court emphasised that an extension should only be granted in exceptional circumstances and that the onus was on the appellant to show that such circumstances existed. The court ultimately dismissed the application for an extension.

Orders