Spencer v Hutson

[2007] QCA 178

SUPREME COURT OF QUEENSLAND

CITATION:

Spencer & Anor v Hutson & Ors [2007] QCA 178

PARTIES:

RICHARD WILLIAM SPENCER in his own capacity and as trustee of THE SPENCER FAMILY TRUST
(third defendant/first applicant)
SILVANA PEROVICH
(fourth defendant/second applicant)
v
ROBERT WILLIAM HUTSON and GINETTE MULLER as receivers and managers of NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 102 472 015 (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
(first plaintiff/first respondent)
NEOLIDO HOLDINGS PTY LTD ACN 102 472 015 (RECEIVERS AND MANAGERS APPOINTED) (IN LIQUIDATION)
(second plaintiff/second respondent)
MANGO BOULEVARD PTY LTD ACN 101 544 601 as trustee for THE MANGO BOULEVARD UNIT TRUST
(first defendant/third respondent)
KINSELLA HEIGHTS DEVELOPMENTS PTY LTD
ACN 100 373 368
(second defendant/fourth respondent)

FILE NO/S:

Appeal No 11354 of 2006
SC No 716 of 2006

DIVISION:

Court of Appeal

PROCEEDING:

Application for Extension of Time/General Civil Appeal

ORIGINATING COURT:

Supreme Court at Brisbane

DELIVERED ON:

1 June 2007

DELIVERED AT:

Brisbane

HEARING DATE:

24 May 2007

JUDGES:

Williams, Jerrard and Keane JJA
Separate reasons for judgment of each member of the Court, each concurring as to the orders made

ORDER:

1. Application for extension of time refused

2. Applicants to pay second respondent's costs of the application

CATCHWORDS:

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL – APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – QUEENSLAND – TIME FOR APPEAL – EXTENSION OF TIME – WHEN REFUSED – where applicants indicated intention to seek appeal and stay of judgment three months after summary judgment given – where applicants did not file appeal or make application at that time – where further orders made and not appealed against – where second respondent thereafter incurred cost in pursuing bankruptcy proceedings against applicants – whether extension of time should be granted

Australian Woollen Mills Pty Ltd v The Commonwealth (1954) 92 CLR 424, cited
Beil & Anor v Mansell & Ors [2006] QCA 173; [2006] 2 Qd R 199, applied
In Re McArdle, Decd [1951] Ch 669, applied
Re W & M Roith Ltd [1967] 1 All ER 427, applied

COUNSEL:

A P Nase for the applicants
T P Sullivan for the first and second respondents
T J Bradley for the third respondent
C J Shepherd (sol) for the fourth respondent

SOLICITORS:

Qld Law Group - A New Direction for the applicants
Mallesons Stephen Jaques for the first and second respondents
Minter Ellison for the third respondent
Tucker & Cowen for the fourth respondent

1. WILLIAMS JA:  I have had the advantage of reading the reasons for judgment of Keane JA and there is nothing I wish to add thereto.  I agree with what he has said therein and with the orders he has proposed.

1. JERRARD JA:  I have read the judgment of Keane JA in this matter and agree with the orders and reasons proposed therein.

1. KEANE JA:  On 19 May 2006, the learned primary judge, on an application for summary judgment, ordered that the second plaintiff, Neolido Holdings Pty Ltd (Receivers and Managers Appointed) (In Liquidation) ("Holdings"), recover the sum of…