Nguyen v Nguyen

Case [2021] NSWCA 161


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:

[2019] NSWSC 131; [2019] NSWSC 1103

Date of Decision:
22 February 2019; 27 August 2019
Before:
Slattery J
File Number(s):
2015/151521

Judgment

  1. 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.

  2. 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).

  3. 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.

  4. Following a…

Continue reading Nguyen v Nguyen

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Nguyen v Nguyen [2021] NSWCA 161
Case
[2021] NSWCA 161
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The appeal concerned an application for an extension of time to appeal, brought by the applicant, Mr. Nguyen, against the respondent, also Mr. Nguyen. The dispute arose from an earlier decision of the court below, the details of which are not specified in the provided text. The matter was heard by Bell P and Meagher JA.

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.