Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia
Case
•
[2014] NSWCA 443
•08 December 2014
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia [2014] NSWCA 443
[2014] NSWCA 443
08 December 2014
CaseChat Overview and Summary
In *Neale v Commonwealth Bank of Australia*, the appellants sought to appeal a decision, but had delayed in serving their notice of appeal. The respondent applied for dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution. The matter came before Leeming JA in the Court of Appeal of New South Wales.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the appellants an extension of time to file and serve their notice of appeal, despite the delay and the respondent's application for dismissal. The Court also considered the respondent's application for dismissal for want of prosecution.
Leeming JA granted the appellants leave to file and serve an amended Notice of Appeal and written submissions by a specified date. This grant was made subject to a "guillotine order," meaning that if the appellants failed to comply with this filing requirement, their proceedings would be dismissed, and they would be ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The Court also ordered the respondents to file their submissions within four weeks of the appellants filing theirs, and otherwise dismissed the respondents' notice of motion seeking dismissal, with the appellants to pay the costs of that motion.
The primary legal issue before the Court was whether to grant the appellants an extension of time to file and serve their notice of appeal, despite the delay and the respondent's application for dismissal. The Court also considered the respondent's application for dismissal for want of prosecution.
Leeming JA granted the appellants leave to file and serve an amended Notice of Appeal and written submissions by a specified date. This grant was made subject to a "guillotine order," meaning that if the appellants failed to comply with this filing requirement, their proceedings would be dismissed, and they would be ordered to pay the respondent's costs. The Court also ordered the respondents to file their submissions within four weeks of the appellants filing theirs, and otherwise dismissed the respondents' notice of motion seeking dismissal, with the appellants to pay the costs of that motion.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Appeal
-
Costs
-
Abuse of Process
-
Stay of Proceedings
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Liton v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited [2025] NSWPIC 547
Cases Citing This Decision
3
Kamm v State of New South Wales (No 2)
[2017] NSWCA 14
Browne v Owners of Strata Plan No 55497
[2014] NSWDC 239
Liton v Allianz Australia Insurance Limited
[2025] NSWPIC 547
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
1
Hobbs v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2013] NSWCA 432
Hobbs v Australian Securities and Investments Commission
[2013] NSWCA 205