Peers v Fletcher

In Peers v Fletcher, the applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for leave to appeal against orders as to costs in two separate proceedings. The applicant was self-represented and had experienced delays in filing the application for leave to appeal, amounting to six months for the first proceeding and six weeks for the second. The respondent opposed the application on the basis that there was no adequate explanation for the delay, and the proposed grounds of appeal were not sufficiently arguable.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant could be granted an extension of time to file the application for leave to appeal, and if so, under what circumstances. The court had to consider the relevant provisions of the Supreme Court (General Civil Procedure) Rules 2015, and the cases of Gippsreal Ltd v Kenny and Northern Territory v Sangare. The court had to determine whether the applicant's delay was excusable, and whether the proposed grounds of appeal were arguable.

The court found that the applicant had not provided an adequate explanation for the delay, and that the proposed grounds of appeal were not sufficiently arguable. The court held that the applicant had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension of time, and that the delay had caused prejudice to the respondent. The court held that the application for extension of time was refused. The court also noted that the applicant had not demonstrated that the proposed grounds of appeal were arguable, and that the application for leave to appeal would likely be unsuccessful.

The court did not make any orders in relation to the application for extension of time, and the applicant's appeal against the orders as to costs in the two separate proceedings remained unfiled. The court held that the applicant's delay in filing the application for leave to appeal was not excusable, and that the proposed grounds of appeal were not sufficiently arguable. The court held that the application for extension of time was refused, and that the applicant's appeal against the orders as to costs in the two separate proceedings remained unfiled.