Kimber v The Owners Strata Plan 48216 (No 2)

Link copied
Case Copied 10 min read

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Kimber v The Owners Strata Plan 48216 (No 2) [2017] FCA 750

Appeal from: Kimber v The Owners Strata Plan No. 48216 [2016] FCA 1090
File number: NSD 1689 of 2016
Judge: GLEESON J
Date of judgment: 9 June 2017
Date of publication of reasons: 4 July 2017
Catchwords:

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal – where draft notice substantially but not entirely in the form allowed by grant of leave to appeal – where there is no prejudice to the respondent by an extension of time – application granted with non-conforming portions of the draft notice of appeal excised

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – review of a decision of a Registrar to refuse to accept documents for filing – whether documents are an abuse of process – whether Court has power to make orders sought in the interlocutory application – application dismissed

Legislation:

Federal Court of Australia Act 1976 (Cth)

Federal Court Rules 2011

Date of hearing: 9 June 2017
Registry: New South Wales
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 16
Counsel for the Appellant: The appellant appeared in person
Solicitor for the Respondent: Ms S Meimanis of Grace Lawyers Pty Limited

ORDERS

NSD 1689 of 2016
BETWEEN:

JANELLE MARY KIMBER

Appellant

AND:

THE OWNERS STRATA PLAN NO 48216 (AGENTS/OFFICERS)

Respondent

JUDGE:

GLEESON J

DATE OF ORDER:

9 JUNE 2017

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.Time is extended to 9 June 2017 to file the Notice of Appeal dated 26 April 2017, amended to delete the first five lines on page three.

2.The Notice of Appeal dated 26 April 2017 with the excisions set out in Order 1 shall be taken to be filed on 9 June 2017 and shall stand as the Notice of Appeal in the appeal.

3.The application to review the decision of Deputy District Registrar Cho made on 7 June 2017 is dismissed.

4.Each party is to bear its own costs in relation to the extension of time application.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

GLEESON J:

EXTENSION OF TIME TO APPEAL

  1. On 9 June 2017, I extended the time for filing of the notice of appeal dated 26 April 2016, on terms that some words in the notice of appeal be excised. The excision was required to remove words that sought relief beyond the scope of the grant of leave to appeal in Kimber v The Owners Strata Plan No. 48216 [2017] FCA 364.

  2. At the hearing on the application, the respondent opposed the grant of an extension of time on two bases. The first was that the grant of an extension of time would prejudice the respondent’s interests in having a creditor’s petition against Ms Kimber heard before April 2018, when the petition will expire. Second, the respondent submitted that the proposed appeal…

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kimber v The Owners Strata Plan 48216 (No 2) and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2017] FCA 750
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Kimber v The Owners Strata Plan 48216 (No 2) involved an application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal and a review of a decision of a Registrar to refuse to accept documents for filing. The applicant, Kimber, sought an extension of time to file a notice of appeal that was substantially but not entirely in the required form. The Registrar had refused to accept documents for filing, deeming them an abuse of process. The legal issues before the court were whether the court should grant an extension of time and whether the court could review the decision of the Registrar.

The court found that the application for an extension of time should be granted as there was no prejudice to the respondent by the short delay involved, and Kimber, being self-represented, evidently experienced difficulty in understanding and complying with the court’s processes. The court excised the non-conforming portions of the draft notice of appeal and ordered that the amended notice be filed by the specified date. The court also dismissed the application for review of the Registrar’s decision, finding that the documents were not an abuse of process and that the court lacked the power to make the orders sought in the interlocutory application.

The court's orders included granting an extension of time for filing the notice of appeal with specified excisions, dismissing the application for review of the Registrar’s decision, and ordering that each party bear its own costs in relation to the extension of time application.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. Time is extended to 9 June 2017 to file the Notice of Appeal dated 26 April 2017, amended to delete the first five lines on page three.

2. The Notice of Appeal dated 26 April 2017 with the excisions set out in Order 1 shall be taken to be filed on 9 June 2017 and shall stand as the Notice of Appeal in the appeal.

3. The application to review the decision of Deputy District Registrar Cho made on 7 June 2017 is dismissed.

4. Each party is to bear its own costs in relation to the extension of time application.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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

I ordered that each party bear its own costs of the application to extend time because the application was opposed by the respondent despite the very short delay involved and where the appellant is self-represented and evidently experiences difficulty in understanding and complying with the Court’s processes. The respondent’s solicitor complained that she did not receive a copy of the notice of appeal from the appellant or from the Court, despite requests to the Sydney registry. Why the solicitor was unsuccessful in obtaining a notice of appeal from the registry was not explained. Nor was it explained why the solicitor did not seek to obtain a copy of the notice of appeal from my associate. In any event, I was not satisfied that the respondent took sufficient steps to avoid the necessity of a hearing on the extension of time application. REVIEW OF DEPUTY DISTRICT REGISTRAR CHO’S DECISION On 7 June 2017, Deputy District Registrar Cho (“Registrar”) refused to accept for filing an interlocutory application dated 6 June 2017 signed by the appellant (“Ms Kimber”) attaching documents titled “application for leave to commence new proceedings” and “table of pleadings” together with an affidavit affirmed by Ms Kimber on 6 June 2017. Rule 2.26 of the Federal Court Rules 2011 provides:A Registrar may refuse to accept a document (including a document that would, if accepted, become an originating application) if the Registrar is satisfied that the document is an abuse of the process of the Court or is frivolous or vexatious: (a) on the face of the document; or (b)by reference to any documents already filed or submitted for filing with the document. Under the heading “Interlocutory orders sought”, the interlocutory application states:1.Orders sought in this application are to assist the expedient resolution of a case by directly addressing the real controversy behind a long standing strata legal dispute.2.Orders to stay the execution of the appeal as it stands, conditional on a full court of three judges examining the substantive subject matter raised in prior courtrooms and inside this application seeking a complete resolution.3.Orders that an oral argument on the application be heard on the same day as the matter of the Notice Of Appeal ‘extension of time’ is addressed4.Orders for the application to not be judged on form and style but to be read without prejudice for the content inside the pleadings and particulars drafted by the applicant this point intending the final submission to be prepared and presented by a barrister.5.Orders to summons documents and witnesses to augment court proceedings and to establish a quicker cheaper effective timetable to end this dispute and all proceedings. The 6 June 2017 affidavit states relevantly, that Ms Kimber seeks “urgently to resolve this dispute and real controversy behind a case taking over my life” and, in particular:4.Winning the limited appeal on the law and facts, offers a limited result but will not resolve the ‘core matter’ behind the two bankruptcy actions that have caused damage and loss and currently continuing to cause harm to my life and the strata scheme at large.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.