Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v Aitken (No. 2)
Case
•
[2010] NSWDC 65
•25 March 2010
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v Aitken (No. 2) [2010] NSWDC 65
[2010] NSWDC 65
25 March 2010
CaseChat Overview and Summary
Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd sought to appeal the decision of three costs assessors, however, the summons was filed almost a year after the 28-day appeal period had expired. The defendant, Aitken, applied for the appeal to be dismissed on the basis of the late filing and the plaintiff's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings was also dismissed. Scope Data Systems challenged the dismissal of their application for an extension of time to commence proceedings, and the dismissal of their application for an adjournment of the proceedings. The court was required to determine if the summons was filed within the required timeframe, and if not, whether any extensions or exceptions applied.
The court found that the summons was filed well beyond the statutory time limit for appealing the costs decision, and no exceptional circumstances existed to justify an extension of time. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application. Additionally, the plaintiff's application for an adjournment of the proceedings was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of these proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish any grounds for an adjournment or an extension of time to commence proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application for an adjournment of the proceedings was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application. The plaintiff's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings was also dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of these proceedings. The exhibits were to remain with the file for 28 days, and the defendant was given seven days to serve submissions in support of their application for indemnity costs. The plaintiff was given seven days to reply, and the judgment on the application for indemnity costs was to be emailed to the parties by Gibson DCJ.
The court found that the summons was filed well beyond the statutory time limit for appealing the costs decision, and no exceptional circumstances existed to justify an extension of time. The appeal was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application. Additionally, the plaintiff's application for an adjournment of the proceedings was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of these proceedings. The court found that the plaintiff had failed to establish any grounds for an adjournment or an extension of time to commence proceedings.
The final orders of the court were that the plaintiff's application for an adjournment of the proceedings was dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of the application. The plaintiff's application for an extension of time to commence proceedings was also dismissed, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay the defendant's costs of these proceedings. The exhibits were to remain with the file for 28 days, and the defendant was given seven days to serve submissions in support of their application for indemnity costs. The plaintiff was given seven days to reply, and the judgment on the application for indemnity costs was to be emailed to the parties by Gibson DCJ.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Civil Litigation & Procedure
Legal Concepts
-
Costs
-
Limitation Periods
-
Appeal
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Most Recent Citation
Gorczynski v Aitken and Ors (No.2) [2011] FMCA 86
Cases Citing This Decision
4
Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v Aitken (No. 3)
[2010] NSWDC 66
Gorczynski v Aitken and Ors (No.2)
[2011] FMCA 86
Scope Data Systems Pty Ltd v Aitken (No. 3)
[2010] NSWDC 66
Cases Cited
11
Statutory Material Cited
6
Doyle v Hall Chadwick
[2007] NSWCA 159
Muriniti v Lyons
[2004] NSWSC 135
Brierley v Reeves t/as Kaplan Reeves & Co
[2000] NSWSC 305