Court of Appeal
Supreme Court
New South Wales
Medium Neutral Citation: Nguyen v Nguyen [2021] NSWCA 161 Hearing dates: 23 July 2021 Date of orders: 03 August 2021 Decision date: 03 August 2021 Before: Bell P; Meagher JA Decision: 1. Application for extension of time to appeal refused with costs.
2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Catchwords: APPEAL – where applicant incorrectly filed an application for leave to appeal – where, although leave to appeal was not required, an extension of time in which to bring the appeal was required – no satisfactory explanation provided for delay in commencing appeal proceedings – where no injustice would be suffered by the applicant if an extension of time to appeal was refused – application for extension of time to appeal refused
Legislation Cited: Conveyancing Act 1919 (NSW) s 66G
Supreme Court Rules 1970 (NSW) Pt 51, r 56(1)
Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) rr 51.8, 51.9(1), 51.16(1)(c)
Cases Cited: Dyason v Butterworth [2015] NSWCA 52
Gallow v The Honourable Justice Dawson (1990) 64 ALJR 458; [1990] HCA 30
Gilmore Finance Pty Ltd v Aesthete No 3 Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 114
Mohareb v Saratoga Marine Pty Ltd [2020] NSWCA 235
O’Hare v Bradfield Bentley Pty Ltd (in liq) [2019] NSWCA 122
Renshaw v New South Wales Lotteries Corporation Pty Ltd [2021] NSWCA 41
Rizk v FA Constructions Australia Pty Ltd (No 2) [2016] NSWCA 203
Tomko v Palasty (No 2) (2007) 71 NSWLR 61; [2007] NSWCA 369
Category: Principal judgment Parties: Anh Tuan Nguyen (Applicant)
Thi Anh Thuy Nguyen (Respondent)Representation: Counsel:
A T Nguyen (Applicant) (In person)
B M Zipser (Respondent)Solicitors:
Integrity Legal Specialists (Respondent)
File Number(s): 2021/28303 Publication restriction: N/A Decision under appeal
- Court or tribunal:
- Supreme Court of New South Wales
- Jurisdiction:
- Equity
- Citation:
- Date of Decision:
- 22 February 2019; 27 August 2019
- Before:
- Slattery J
- File Number(s):
- 2015/151521
Judgment
-
THE COURT: Before the Court is an application for an extension of time in which to file a Notice of Appeal in relation to two decisions of Slattery J (the primary judge) in the Equity Division of this Court.
-
The underlying proceedings concerned the ownership of a property in Terrigal (the Terrigal Property), which had been purchased in 2001 for $440,000. The Respondent in these proceedings (the Plaintiff below) had entered into an oral agreement concerning the purchase of the property with her brother, the Applicant (the Defendant below).
-
By 2015, the relationship between the siblings had broken down, and the Applicant disputed the Respondent’s claim to an equitable interest in the Terrigal Property. In 2015, the Respondent commenced proceedings in this Court, in which she sought declarations that the Applicant held the Terrigal Property on constructive trust for her as to 50% or, in the alternative, as to 40%. She also claimed, in the alternative, that the Applicant held the Terrigal Property on resulting trust for her.
-
Following a…
Continue reading Nguyen v Nguyen
Sign in free to access the full text
- AGLC
- Nguyen v Nguyen [2021] NSWCA 161
- Case
- [2021] NSWCA 161
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The primary legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to file his appeal. Although leave to appeal was not required for this particular matter, the applicant had failed to commence his appeal proceedings within the prescribed time limits. Consequently, the Court was required to determine if there was a sufficient reason to permit the appeal to proceed out of time.
The Court refused the application for an extension of time. Their Honours found that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for the significant delay in commencing his appeal proceedings. Furthermore, the Court concluded that no injustice would be suffered by the applicant if the extension of time was refused. Accordingly, the application for an extension of time to appeal was refused, and the application for leave to appeal was dismissed, both with costs.
Orders
Orders of the court
1. Application for extension of time to appeal refused with costs.
2. Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
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.