Leeming JA at [1]; Mitchelmore JA at [5]; Price AJA at [122]
Decision:
(1) The extension of time to file the summons, which was amended pursuant to leave granted on 4 August 2024, is refused with costs.
Catchwords:
CIVIL PROCEDURE — time limits — extension of time — judicial review — multiple grounds of review — no reviewable error established — no explanation for delay — lack of merit — lack of public interest
Pursuant to the order made by the District Court on 1 September 2022 in proceedings 2022/189617, as varied by the District Court on 7 November 2023 in proceedings 2022/189617 and the Court of Appeal on 27 August 2024 in proceedings 2024/187586, the names of the applicant and first respondent are…
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 M1 v R1
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
M1 v R1 [2024] NSWCA 256
Case
[2024] NSWCA 256
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The applicant, M1, sought an extension of time to file a summons for judicial review against the respondent, R1. The matter was heard by Leeming and Mitchelmore JJA, and Price AJA.
The central legal issue before the court was whether to grant M1 an extension of time to pursue its judicial review application, given the significant delay in filing and the nature of the grounds of review. The court was required to consider the applicant's explanation for the delay, the merits of the proposed grounds of review, and whether there was any public interest in granting the extension.
The Court of Appeal refused the application for an extension of time. Their Honours found that no reviewable error had been established by M1, and importantly, there was no satisfactory explanation provided for the considerable delay in commencing proceedings. Furthermore, the court determined that there was a lack of merit in the grounds of review and no compelling public interest that would justify granting an extension.
Consequently, the extension of time to file the summons, which had been amended pursuant to leave granted on 4 August 2024, was refused, and M1 was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings.
Orders
Orders of the court
(1) The extension of time to file the summons, which was amended pursuant to leave granted on 4 August 2024, is refused with costs.