Minus v Selth

In the matter of Minus v Selth, the applicants sought an extension of time to appeal an interlocutory judgment made by a judge of the Federal Court. The interlocutory judgment, handed down on 22 December 2015, dismissed an application for discovery and made associated orders. The applicants did not challenge the judgment or orders regarding discovery but sought to appeal the judge's refusal to recuse himself. The application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time was heard by the court on 27 June 2016.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicants had sufficient merit in their proposed appeal to justify an extension of time and whether there was an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking leave to appeal. The court had to consider whether the applicants met the criteria set out in the Federal Court Act and Rules for leave to appeal from an interlocutory judgment or order and whether the circumstances of the case warranted an extension of time. The court also had to consider any undue prejudice to the respondents if the court were to extend time.

The court found that the applicants did not have sufficient merit in their proposed appeal to justify an extension of time. The court noted that the applicants had not provided an adequate explanation for the delay in seeking leave to appeal and that the delay had caused prejudice to the respondents. The court also found that the factors relevant to the question of whether to extend time in which to apply for leave to appeal overlapped with the factors relevant to whether leave to appeal should be granted. The court concluded that the applicants' application for leave to appeal and for an extension of time should be dismissed.

The court ordered that the application dated 27 June 2016 be dismissed. Unless a party notified in writing the court by 4:00pm on Monday 25 July 2016, indicating opposition to this order as to costs, the first, second and third applicants would pay the respondents' costs of the application, such costs to be taxed in default of agreement. The entry of orders was dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.