This is an application by the appellant to extend time to appeal, and to appeal if leave is granted, against a decision of Mazza DCJ (as his Honour then was) on 24 November 2006. In the proceedings below, the appellant sued the respondent for alleged breaches of contract and in misleading and deceptive conduct in connection with the appellant's $48,000 investment in 2001 in a company known as JJG Nominees Pty Ltd (the company). The company was not a defendant to the action. The appellant's claims in contract and misleading and deceptive conduct had been pleaded against not only the respondent, but also a Mr Bell. At the time, the respondent and Mr Bell were the directors of the company and each held one $1 share in the company. The day before the trial started, the appellant discontinued the claims against Mr Bell. At the trial, each of the appellant and the respondent represented himself.
The appellant's case in the court below was, relevantly, to the effect that in about July 2001 he entered into an agreement with the respondent, by which he agreed to invest $48,000 in the company in consideration for being made a director of the company and a equal shareholder in the company. The effect of the alleged agreement as regards shares in the company, was to require the allotment of one $1 share in the company to the appellant.
The appellant alleged that he paid the $48,000 pursuant to the agreement, and was made a director of the company on 1 August 2001, but was not allotted a share in the company. He claimed, in effect, that there was a breach of contract by the respondent in not procuring the company to allot the share to…
Grounds of appeal
[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.
[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.
[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.
Consideration
[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.
[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.
Continue reading Simonsen v Legge
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
AGLC
Simonsen v Legge [2010] WASCA 238
Case
[2010] WASCA 238
Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of Simonsen v Legge involved an application to extend the time to appeal a decision from the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The applicant, Simonsen, sought to appeal a judgment that had been delivered in the Supreme Court, but the application to extend time was made well beyond the statutory limit for such an application. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant could be granted an extension of time to lodge an appeal against the judgment, despite the time limit having expired. The court also had to consider the principles that should be applied in determining whether to grant an extension of time and the relevance of the merits of the appeal to the decision.
The court examined the principles established in previous cases concerning applications to extend the time to appeal. It noted that the court has a discretion to extend time, but this discretion is not to be exercised lightly and must be balanced against the need for finality in litigation. The court also considered the importance of proper grounds of appeal being presented and the likelihood of success on the appeal. In assessing these factors, the court gave significant weight to the delay in making the application and the reasons for that delay. The court concluded that the delay was unreasonable and that there were no exceptional circumstances to warrant an extension of time.
After considering the principles and the facts of the case, the court found that the application to extend time should be dismissed. The court held that the delay in making the application was inordinate and that there were no compelling reasons to justify the delay. The court also noted that the merits of the appeal were not sufficiently strong to warrant an extension of time. The applicant was therefore unable to appeal the decision of the Supreme Court. The court emphasised that the principles applied in this case should serve as a guide for future applications of this nature.