Ibrahim v Considine Architect

The appellant, Ibrahim, filed an appeal against an interlocutory judgment of the Federal Court, seeking leave to appeal and an extension of time for filing the application for leave to appeal. The original application alleged misleading and deceptive conduct by the respondent, Considine Architect, in relation to the hourly rate of payment and superannuation and tax deductions. The appellant did not attend the initial hearing, leading to the dismissal of his application. Subsequently, an application to set aside the dismissal was also dismissed by the primary judge, who found that while the appellant had an adequate reason for his absence, there was no arguable case on the merits.

The court had to determine whether to grant an extension of time for filing the application for leave to appeal, which was filed thirteen days late, and whether to grant leave to appeal the interlocutory judgment. The appellant's affidavit did not explain the delay in filing the appeal, but the court considered whether there was enough doubt about the primary judge's decision to warrant reconsideration. The appellant challenged several findings of the primary judge, including the determination that the respondent was not a corporation under the Trade Practices Act and that the conduct in question did not constitute conduct in trade or commerce.

The court ultimately found that there was no sufficient doubt about the primary judge's decision to warrant reconsideration and that no substantial injustice would result from refusing the application for an extension of time and leave to appeal. The appellant's application for an extension of time and leave to appeal was therefore dismissed.