Mijac Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 084 820 280) v Graham
Case
•
[2010] FCA 895
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd (ACN 084 820 280) v Graham [2010] FCA 895
[2010] FCA 895
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd sought an extension of time to file and serve its notice of appeal from a previous judgment of Gordon J. The appeal was initially filed on 12 August 2009 but not served within the 21-day period required by the Federal Court Rules. The application for the extension was made on 30 June 2010. The court was required to determine whether Mijac had provided special reasons to justify the extension of time, and whether the application should be granted.
The court found that Mijac had failed to provide special reasons for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal. The court noted that the failure to serve the notice of appeal was not excused by the refusal of a fee waiver application, and that the appellant had not complied with several orders of the court. The court also found that financial considerations alone were insufficient to justify an extension of time. The court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed, with costs.
The court dismissed the application for an extension of time and ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application. The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide special reasons for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal, and that the failure to comply with orders of the court was a significant factor in the decision. The court also noted that the applicant had not sought to set aside the orders of Gray J, which dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with directions of the Court. The court held that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed, with costs.
The court found that Mijac had failed to provide special reasons for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal. The court noted that the failure to serve the notice of appeal was not excused by the refusal of a fee waiver application, and that the appellant had not complied with several orders of the court. The court also found that financial considerations alone were insufficient to justify an extension of time. The court concluded that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed, with costs.
The court dismissed the application for an extension of time and ordered that the applicant pay the respondents' costs of the application. The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide special reasons for the delay in filing and serving the notice of appeal, and that the failure to comply with orders of the court was a significant factor in the decision. The court also noted that the applicant had not sought to set aside the orders of Gray J, which dismissed the appeal for failure to comply with directions of the Court. The court held that the application for an extension of time should be dismissed, with costs.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Limitation Periods
-
Appeal
-
Costs
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Jorgensen v Jorgensen [2016] QSC 193
Cases Citing This Decision
8
Jorgensen v Jorgensen
[2016] QSC 193
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham
[2014] FCA 366
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham
[2013] FCA 296
Cases Cited
6
Statutory Material Cited
0
Rishmawi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[1999] FCA 611
Rishmawi v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
[1999] FCA 611
Mijac Investments Pty Ltd v Graham
[2010] FCA 87