Klement v Randles - [2012] VSCA 73

SUPREME COURT OF VICTORIA

COURT OF APPEAL

S APCI 2011 0161

JIRI KLEMENT	Applicant
v
PETER JAMES RANDLES	Respondent

---

JUDGES:	MANDIE JA and CAVANOUGH AJA
WHERE HELD:	MELBOURNE
DATE OF HEARING:	23 and 26 March 2012
DATE OF JUDGMENT:	26 March 2012
MEDIUM NEUTRAL CITATION:	[2012] VSCA 73
JUDGMENT APPEALED FROM:	Klement v Randles (Unreported, Supreme Court of Victoria, Lansdowne AsJ, 5 September 2011)

---

PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – Application for extension of time to file notice of appeal – Previous non-compliance with procedural requirements – No explanation for delay – Prejudice to respondent and others – Desirability of finality – Negligible prospects of success – Application dismissed

---

APPEARANCES:	Counsel	Solicitors
The Applicant appeared in person
For the Respondent	Mr D Begg (solicitor)	Lennon Mazzeo

MANDIE JA:

I invite Cavanough AJA to read the first judgment.

CAVANOUGH AJA:

By summons filed on 10 October 2011, the applicant, Jiri Klement, who is also known as George Klement and who prefers to be called Reverend Klement, applies for an extension of time in which to file and serve a notice of appeal against an order of Lansdowne AsJ made on 5 September 2011 in Proceeding No SCI 2011 00743.

History of the matter

This proceeding has a long and complex prior history that need not be referred to in detail. In essence, the dispute between the parties concerns the deceased estate of Reverend Klement’s mother, Ludmilla Klement. By her will executed on 30 May 2002, Mrs Ludmilla Klement appointed the respondent, Mr Randles, who is a solicitor, the executor of her estate. Mrs Klement passed away on 27 December 2005. Mr Randles obtained probate of Ludmilla Klement's will on 8 May 2006.

Under the terms of the will, Reverend Klement was given a life estate in a house at 105 Collier Crescent, West Brunswick on condition that he pay the rates and other outgoings, and that he keep the property in a good state of repair. The will further provided as follows:

… in the event of my Trustee being satisfied that my son GEORGE KLEMENT is not capable of residing in such property my Trustee shall have the power either to rent such property to tenants and to use the net income arising from such letting for the maintenance and advancement in life of my said son GEORGE KLEMENT during his lifetime or to sell such property and to invest the moneys from such sale and to use the income derived from such investment for the maintenance and advancement in life of my said son GEORGE KLEMENT.

Mr Randles formed the view that the applicant was no longer capable of living at the property and commenced proceedings seeking possession of it. The background to those proceedings and the history of the litigation are set out in detail in the decisions of Maxwell P and Emerton AJA dated 25 June 2010 and 17 December 2010 respectively, namely Klement v Randles[1] and Klement v Randles (No 2)[2] respectively. The details…

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 Klement v Randles

Details

AGLC: Klement v Randles [2012] VSCA 73
Case: [2012] VSCA 73
Decision Date: 26 March 2012

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Klement v Randles involved the applicant seeking an extension of time to file a notice of appeal against a decision made by the respondent. The application was brought before the court to address the procedural delays and the lack of justification for the delay, which had caused prejudice to the respondent and potentially others. Additionally, the application highlighted the importance of finality in legal proceedings and the negligible prospects of success for the applicant’s appeal.

The court had to determine whether the applicant's reasons for the delay were acceptable and whether granting the extension would be in the interests of justice. The central issues included whether the applicant had a valid explanation for the non-compliance with procedural requirements and whether the delay had prejudiced the respondent or others. Furthermore, the court needed to consider the principle of finality in litigation and assess the likelihood of the applicant succeeding in their appeal.

The court dismissed the application for an extension of time, noting that the applicant had failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay. The court found that the delay had indeed prejudiced the respondent, as it had disrupted the respondent’s ability to prepare for the appeal. Additionally, the court emphasised the importance of finality in legal proceedings and concluded that there was a negligible chance of the applicant succeeding in their appeal. Consequently, the application was dismissed, and the court upheld the procedural requirements for timely filing of notices of appeal.

Orders