FEDERAL COURT PRACTICE & PROCEDURE - Federal Court pules - Extension -0.f time for filing notice of appeal to Full :Court -
Effect of solicitor's error - Meaning in Order 52 Rule J5(2)
,of
"the Court or a Judge for special reasons may at any t+me give leave to file and serve a notice of appeal" - Width of Court's
discretion.
; l
!
~i
I I
Federal Court Rules Order
52, Rule 15(2)
I
I I
1 ,
Gatti v. Shoosmith
C19391
1 Ch. 841
I
Salter Rex & Co. v. Ghosh C19711 2 Q.B. 597
--
:
Regina v. Secretary of State for the Home Department, Ex parte
Mehta C19751 1 W.L.R. 1087
--
Palata Investments Ltd v. Burt
& Sinfield Ltd C19851 2 'All E.R.
517
Hughes v. National Trustees Executors
& Agency Co. of Australasia
Ltd. C19781 V.R. 257
Outboard Marine Australia Pty Ltd v. Byrnes C19741
1 NLS.1V.L.R.
27 I
P:,
86
JESS -V-
SCOTT & ORS.
NSW 1.23 of 1986
Lockhart, Sheppard
& Burchett JJ.
Sydney
4 November 1986
:
j
I
I
Id THE
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
1
!
!
1
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
1
No.
1.23
of 1986
l
1
INDUSTRIAL DIVISION
1
I
I
BETWEEN:
MICHAEL PATRICK JESS
Applicant
-
AND:
~
l
: I
and
I '
AMALGAMATED METALS
FOUNDRY & SHIPWRIGHTS'
UNION
Respondents
MINUTE OF ORDER OF THE COURT
Judges 'Making Order:
Lockhart. Sheppard & Burchett JJ.
Date of lorder:
14 October,
1986
Sydney
l
I . ]
L
1
l
!
l. .
4 "
2.
I
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
-
Upon the condition that the respondents' costs of the
motion are paid by the solicitor for the applicant time
i
for filing and service
of a notice of appeal be extended
I =
until 14 August 1986 and that the filing and service
of
a notice of appeal which took place on that date
be
taken
to have been a sufficient compliance with this
order.
-
NOTE :
Settlement and entry
of orders is dealt with by Order
36
of the Federal Court Rules.
\
I
!
IN THE
FEDERAL
COURT
OF AUSTRALIA
1
1
, .
.I
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY
1
No. 1.23 of 1986
!
a .
l
1
I
DIV SION
INDUSTRIAL
---l
i
BETWEEN :
MICHAEL PATRICK JESS
Applicant
-
AND :
I
and
AMALGAMATED METALS
FOUNDRY & SHIPWRIGHTS'
UNION
I ..
I
Respondents
Coram: Lockhart, Sheppard & Burchett JJ.
-
Date: 4 November 1986
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
THE COURT
On 23 July 1986 Wilcox J. delivered judgment dismissing
i
.
;
I .
two proceedings brought
by the applicant and ordering him to pay
..
2.
I
I
to
the
respondents
their
costs
of one of the proceedings.
The
!
applicant's solicitor received, in due time, instructions
to file
1 and serve a Notice of Appeal to a Full…
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 Jess v Scott
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Jess v Scott [1986] FCA 473
Case
[1986] FCA 473
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In the Federal Court of Australia, between Michael Patrick Jess, the applicant, and the Amalgamated Metals Foundry and Shipwrights' Union, the respondents, the Court was required to decide whether an extension of time for filing and serving a Notice of Appeal should be granted under Order 52 Rule 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules. The applicant's solicitor had failed to file the Notice of Appeal within the required 21-day period due to a misunderstanding about the date of judgment delivery. The Court's reasoning involved examining the meaning of "special reasons" in Rule 15(2) and considering relevant authorities. The Court found that the expression "special reasons" was intended to describe a flexible discretionary power, suitable for application across a range of situations. The Court held that there were special reasons justifying the making of the order sought and made the order subject to the condition that the respondents' costs of the application be borne by the applicant's solicitor personally.
The Court ordered that upon the condition that the respondents' costs of the motion were paid by the solicitor for the applicant, time for filing and service of a Notice of Appeal be extended until 14 August 1986 and that the filing and service of a Notice of Appeal which took place on that date be taken to have been a sufficient compliance with this order.