COURT OF APPEAL
McMURDO P
MUIR J
MULLINS J
CA No 403 of 2003
| GEORGE KASSER | Appellant/Applicant |
| and | |
| KERRIE-SUE ANNE HAINES | Respondent/Respondent |
BRISBANE
..DATE 11/05/2004
ORDER
THE PRESIDENT: In the circumstances, the appropriate order is that the application for an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal should be struck out for want of prosecution.
-----
Details
- AGLC
- Kasser v Haines [2004] QCA 156
- Case
- [2004] QCA 156
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Kasser v Haines involved a dispute between George Kasser and Kerrie-Sue Anne Haines, with the matter reaching the Court of Appeal. The underlying dispute originated from a lower court decision that was now being contested by the appellant, Kasser. The court was tasked with evaluating whether the appeal could proceed under the circumstances presented.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant's application for an extension of time to file an appeal should be granted, considering the appellant had failed to diligently pursue the appeal. The court had to determine if the delay in filing the appeal was justified and whether the appellant could be granted an extension under the relevant legal provisions.
The Court of Appeal, comprising McMurdo P, Muir JM, and Mullins J, found that the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in pursuing the appeal. The appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, and the court was of the view that the application for an extension of time should not be granted. Consequently, the court decided to strike out the application for leave to appeal for want of prosecution. The court emphasised that the appellant needed to act with due diligence in pursuing legal remedies, and the failure to do so warranted the dismissal of the application.
The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether the appellant's application for an extension of time to file an appeal should be granted, considering the appellant had failed to diligently pursue the appeal. The court had to determine if the delay in filing the appeal was justified and whether the appellant could be granted an extension under the relevant legal provisions.
The Court of Appeal, comprising McMurdo P, Muir JM, and Mullins J, found that the appellant had not demonstrated sufficient diligence in pursuing the appeal. The appellant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeal, and the court was of the view that the application for an extension of time should not be granted. Consequently, the court decided to strike out the application for leave to appeal for want of prosecution. The court emphasised that the appellant needed to act with due diligence in pursuing legal remedies, and the failure to do so warranted the dismissal of the application.
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.