Maytom v Prentice

Case [2013] FCA 387


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Maytom v Prentice [2013] FCA 387

Citation: Maytom v Prentice [2013] FCA 387
Parties: GARY ALLAN MAYTOM v MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE OF BPS RECOVERY, CRAIG PRYOR OF WARREN MCKEON DICKESON SOLICITORS PTY LTD and JACKSON LALIC SOLICITORS
File number: NSD 547 of 2013
Judge: JACOBSON J
Date of judgment: 17 April 2013
Cases cited: Sopikiotis, in the matter of Sopikiotis (Bankrupt) v Vince (Trustee) [2013] FCAFC 24
Date of hearing: 17 April 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: No Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 8
Solicitor for the Applicant: Ms Taylor as litigation guardian
Solicitor for the Respondents: Ms Nash

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 547 of 2013

BETWEEN:

GARY ALLAN MAYTOM
Applicant

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE OF BPS RECOVERY
First Respondent

CRAIG PRYOR OF WARREN MCKEON DICKESON SOLICITORS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JACKSON LALIC SOLICITORS
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE OF ORDER:

17 APRIL 2013

WHERE MADE:

SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The time for filing and serving of a Notice of Appeal by the appellant against the decision of Federal Magistrate Driver be extended to 7 May 2013.

2.As a condition of the extension of time, the parties are referred to mediation before a Registrar of the Federal Court no later than 1 May 2013.  No step is to be taken in the appeal (including the filing of any Notice of Appeal), pending the outcome of the mediation.

3.The grounds of the appeal are to be limited to the question of denial of procedural fairness in accordance with the reasons for judgment handed down on 17 April 2013.

4.Pursuant to Federal Court Rule 9.63, Ms Rachel Taylor be appointed as litigation guardian for Mr Gary Allan Maytom, and that the requirements of the rules relating to the filing of an affidavit by Ms Taylor are dispensed with.

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


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

GENERAL DIVISION

NSD 547 of 2013

BETWEEN:

GARY ALLAN MAYTOM
Applicant

AND:

MAXWELL WILLIAM PRENTICE OF BPS RECOVERY
First Respondent

CRAIG PRYOR OF WARREN MCKEON DICKESON SOLICITORS PTY LTD
Second Respondent

JACKSON LALIC SOLICITORS
Third Respondent

JUDGE:

JACOBSON J

DATE:

17 APRIL 2013

PLACE:

SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application for leave to extend time under rule 36.05 of the Federal Court Rules to file a notice of appeal against orders made by Driver FM on 4 March 2013.  Time to lodge the notice of appeal expired on 26 March 2013.  The present application was filed only two days later, on 28 March.  Accordingly, the delay is very short and I take that matter into account in coming to the conclusion that I ought to grant the extension.  However, one of the matters which informs the exercise of the jurisdiction to grant an extension of time is the prospects of success on an appeal.  The applicant, Mr Maytom, has…

Continue reading Maytom v Prentice

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Maytom v Prentice [2013] FCA 387
Case
[2013] FCA 387
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the Federal Court of Australia, Maytom v Prentice involved a dispute between the appellant, Mr Gary Allan Maytom, and the respondent, Mr James Prentice. The case was primarily about the denial of procedural fairness in the handling of a decision by Federal Magistrate Driver, which Mr Maytom sought to appeal. The legal issues before the court included whether the time for filing and serving a Notice of Appeal should be extended and, if so, under what conditions. The court was also required to consider the appointment of a litigation guardian for Mr Maytom, as well as the limitations of the grounds for appeal.

The court granted the appellant an extension of time to file and serve a Notice of Appeal, setting the new deadline at 7 May 2013. This extension was contingent upon the parties engaging in mediation before a Registrar of the Federal Court by 1 May 2013. The mediation was to focus on the denial of procedural fairness as outlined in the reasons for judgment delivered on 17 April 2013. Additionally, the court ruled that the grounds of the appeal should be limited to this specific issue. Furthermore, the court appointed Ms Rachel Taylor as a litigation guardian for Mr Maytom, with the requirement of filing an affidavit by Ms Taylor being waived under Federal Court Rule 9.63.

The orders reflect the court's approach to managing the appeal process, ensuring procedural fairness and expediting resolution through mediation. The decision highlights the court's commitment to addressing the appellant's concerns while maintaining procedural integrity. The extension of time and the referral to mediation demonstrate the court's intent to facilitate a fair and effective appeal process. The final orders were entered pursuant to Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011, ensuring compliance with the procedural framework governing the court's decisions.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The time for filing and serving of a Notice of Appeal by the appellant against the decision of Federal Magistrate Driver be extended to 7 May 2013.

2. As a condition of the extension of time, the parties are referred to mediation before a Registrar of the Federal Court no later than 1 May 2013. No step is to be taken in the appeal (including the filing of any Notice of Appeal), pending the outcome of the mediation.

3. The grounds of the appeal are to be limited to the question of denial of procedural fairness in accordance with the reasons for judgment handed down on 17 April 2013.

4. Pursuant to Federal Court Rule 9.63, Ms Rachel Taylor be appointed as litigation guardian for Mr Gary Allan Maytom, and that the requirements of the rules relating to the filing of an affidavit by Ms Taylor are dispensed with.

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

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.