T P ENGINEERING PTY LTD -v- JM [2015] WASCA 181
| SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA | Citation No: | [2015] WASCA 181 | |
| THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) | |||
| Case No: | CACV:97/2014 | 10 AUGUST 2015 | |
| Coram: | BUSS JA BEECH J CORBOY J | 4/09/15 | |
| 30 | Judgment Part: | 1 of 1 | |
| Result: | Appeal and crossappeal dismissed | ||
| B | |||
| PDF Version |
| Parties: | T P ENGINEERING PTY LTD JM PD FI PTY LTD D CORPORATE PTY LTD TDG PTY LTD |
Catchwords: | Practice and procedure Application to extend time for compliance with a springing order Whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion Turns on own facts |
Legislation: | Family Court Act 1997(WA), s 211, s 222 |
Case References: | Adam P Brown Male Fashions Pty Ltd v Philip Morris Inc [1981] HCA 39; (1981) 148 CLR 170 CVW Group Holdings Pty Ltd v Addison [2011] WASC 267 Dodds v Kennedy [2011] WASCA 32 Gronow v Gronow [1979] HCA 63; (1979) 144 CLR 513 House v The King [1936] HCA 40; (1936) 55 CLR 499 Lovell v Lovell [1950] HCA 52; (1950) 81 CLR 513 M and D [2014] FCWA 3 M and D [2014] FCWA 50 MTQ Holdings Pty Ltd v Lynch [2007] WASC 49 Norbis v Norbis [1986] HCA 17; (1986) 161 CLR 513 P v J [2014] WASCA 95 Pearce v International Mining Technologies Ltd [2009] WASCA 239 Stone v Braun [2015] WASCA 103 Wiltrading (WA) Pty Ltd v Lumley General Insurance Ltd [2005] WASCA 106; (2005) 30 WAR 290 |
JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : T P ENGINEERING PTY LTD -v- JM [2015] WASCA 181 CORAM : BUSS JA
- BEECH J
CORBOY J
- Appellant
AND
JM
First Respondent
PD
Second Respondent
FI PTY LTD
Third Respondent
D CORPORATE PTY LTD
Fourth Respondent
TDG PTY LTD
Fifth Respondent
ON APPEAL FROM:
Jurisdiction : FAMILY COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA
Coram : CRISFORD J
Citation : JM and PD [2014] FCWA 50
File No : PTW 1385 of 2009
Catchwords:
Practice and procedure - Application to extend time for compliance with a springing order - Whether primary judge erred in exercise of discretion - Turns on own facts
Legislation:
Family Court Act 1997(WA), s 211, s 222
Result:
Appeal and crossappeal dismissed
Category: B
Representation:
Counsel:
Appellant : Mr F Castiglione QC & Mr G M Cridland
First Respondent : Ms W F Gillan
Second Respondent : Mr H O Moser
Third Respondent : Ms K Krleska
Fourth Respondent : Ms K Krleska
Fifth Respondent : Ms K Krleska
Solicitors:
Appellant : Frichot & Frichot
First Respondent : Bannerman Solicitors
Second Respondent : GG Legal
Third Respondent : Morgan Alteruthemeyer
Fourth Respondent : Morgan Alteruthemeyer
Fifth Respondent : Morgan Alteruthemeyer
Case(s) referred to in judgment(s):
Adam P Brown Male Fashions…
Continue reading TP Engineering Pty Ltd v JM
Sign in free to access the full text
Details
- AGLC
- TP Engineering Pty Ltd v JM [2015] WASCA 181
- Case
- [2015] WASCA 181
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The case of TP Engineering Pty Ltd versus JM involved an application to extend the time for compliance with a springing order. The application was made in the Federal Court of Australia, where the applicant, TP Engineering, sought an extension of time to comply with an order made by the primary judge. The order required compliance upon the occurrence of a specified event, which had occurred, triggering the need for compliance. The respondent, JM, opposed the application, arguing that the applicant had failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for an extension.
The primary issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in exercising their discretion to grant or refuse the extension. This required the court to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion in such matters, particularly the balance between the rights of the parties and the need for justice in the circumstances. The court had to assess whether the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and exercised their discretion reasonably and fairly.
The court found that the primary judge had not erred in their exercise of discretion. The reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case, including the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay and the potential prejudice to the respondent if the extension was granted. The court held that the primary judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the law. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, affirming the primary judge's decision.
The primary issue before the court was whether the primary judge had erred in exercising their discretion to grant or refuse the extension. This required the court to consider the principles governing the exercise of discretion in such matters, particularly the balance between the rights of the parties and the need for justice in the circumstances. The court had to assess whether the primary judge had considered all relevant factors and exercised their discretion reasonably and fairly.
The court found that the primary judge had not erred in their exercise of discretion. The reasoning was based on the specific facts of the case, including the reasons provided by the applicant for the delay and the potential prejudice to the respondent if the extension was granted. The court held that the primary judge had adequately considered the relevant factors and exercised their discretion in a manner consistent with the law. Consequently, the appeal and cross-appeal were dismissed, affirming the primary judge's decision.
Orders
Orders of the court
Appeal and crossappeal dismissed
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.