Hussain v Farhmand (Appeal)

The appeal was brought by the respondent, Farhmand, against the decision of the primary judge, who found that the respondent had committed breaches of the Australian Consumer Law (ACL) by making misleading and deceptive representations regarding the sale of a property in Melbourne. The appeal was lodged beyond the statutory time limit, and the parties' settlement agreement included a clause allowing for an extension of time if leave to appeal was sought. The primary issue for the court was whether the respondent was entitled to leave to appeal out of time, and if so, whether an extension of time should be granted.

The court considered the respondent's arguments for leave to appeal out of time, including the respondent's lack of legal representation at the time of the original proceedings, the respondent's belief that they were still within the time limit, and the parties' settlement agreement. The court held that the respondent had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The court found that the respondent's lack of legal representation did not excuse their failure to file the appeal within the time limit, and that the respondent had failed to provide any evidence to support their belief that they were still within the time limit. The court also held that the settlement agreement did not provide a basis for extending the time limit.

As the respondent was not entitled to leave to appeal out of time, the court dismissed the appeal. The court found that the respondent had failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time. The court held that the respondent's arguments were insufficient to justify the grant of leave, and that the appeal was therefore dismissed. No orders were made in relation to the extension of time.