Jess v Scott

Case [1986] FCA 473


I

i

,

I r,

!

i

: F 7 3

1

I

CATCHWORDS

1

~

i

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…

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.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

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.