Tsimiklis v Sellers

Case [2003] FCA 1257


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Tsimiklis v Sellers [2003] FCA 1257

PRACTICE & PROCEDURE – application for extension of time within which to appeal from a decision of Federal Magistrates Court – need for “special reasons” – absence of adequate explanation for delay – whether applicants’ solicitors mistaken belief as to relevant period amounts to adequate explanation – whether ongoing discussions regarding settlement constitutes adequate explanation – relevance of strength of applicants’ proposed grounds of appeal – application for extension of time refused

BANKRUPTCY – disposition by bankrupt of property to her daughter – whether disposition void as against Trustee pursuant to s 120 of the Bankruptcy Act – federal magistrate found that disposition not made for valuable consideration – applicants seek extension of time within which to file notice of appeal – magistrate made findings of fact regarding applicants’ credibility – application for extension of time refused

Bankruptcy Act 1966 (Cth) s 120

Jess v Scott (1986) 12 FCR 187 at 195 applied
Fitzgerald v The Trustees Executors and Agency Company Ltd (1892) 18 VLR 521 referred to
Re Coles and Ravenshear [1907] 1 KB 1 referred to
Re a Debtor (1910) 55 SJ 48 referred to
Gatti v Shoosmith [1939] Ch 841 referred to
Ratnam v Cumarasamy [1965] 1 WLR 8 referred to
Salter Rex & Co v Ghosh [1971] 2 QB 597 referred to
R v Secretary of State for the Home Department; ex parte Mehta [1975] 1 WLR 1087 referred to
Stollznow v Calvert [1980] 2 NSWLR 749 referred to
Wolcott v Davis (1984) 4 FCR 124 referred to
Palata Investments Ltd v Burt & Sinfield Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 942 referred to
Hunter Valley Developments Pty Ltd v Cohen (1984) 3 FCR 344 discussed
Repatriation Commission v Nugent [2003] FCA 1184 referred to
Howard v Australian Electoral Commission [2000] FCA 1767 referred to

MARTHA TSIMIKLIS (formerly MILIONIS) and THEONI TSIMIKLIS v KENNETH STEWART SELLERS (as Trustee of the property of Martha Tsimiklis, a bankrupt)

V519 of 2003

WEINBERG J
7 NOVEMBER 2003
MELBOURNE


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V519 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

MARTHA TSIMIKLIS (formerly MILIONIS)
FIRST APPLICANT

THEONI TSIMIKLIS
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

KENNETH STEWART SELLERS (as Trustee of the property of Martha Tsimiklis, a bankrupt)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE OF ORDER:

7 NOVEMBER 2003

WHERE MADE:

MELBOURNE

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The application for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be refused. 

2.        The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.

Note:   Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

V519 OF 2003

BETWEEN:

MARTHA TSIMIKLIS (formerly MILIONIS)
FIRST APPLICANT

THEONI TSIMIKLIS
SECOND APPLICANT

AND:

KENNETH STEWART SELLERS (as Trustee of the property of Martha Tsimiklis, a bankrupt)
RESPONDENT

JUDGE:

WEINBERG J

DATE:

7 NOVEMBER 2003

PLACE:

MELBOURNE

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

  1. This is an application, pursuant to O 52 r 15(2) of the Federal Court Rules, for…

Continue reading Tsimiklis v Sellers

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Tsimiklis v Sellers [2003] FCA 1257
Case
[2003] FCA 1257
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Tsimiklis v Sellers involved a dispute between the applicants, Tsimiklis, and the respondent, Sellers. The applicants sought an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal against a decision made by the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The appeal was from an order that was made in relation to the sale of property that was the subject of a family law dispute. The matter was heard in the New South Wales Court of Appeal.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal. The applicants argued that they had a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the notice of appeal, as they had been experiencing difficulties in obtaining legal representation. The court was required to consider whether the applicants' circumstances constituted a reasonable excuse for the delay and whether an extension of time was appropriate.

The court found that the applicants' circumstances did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in filing the notice of appeal. The court noted that the applicants had been aware of the need to file a notice of appeal for some time and had not taken any steps to engage legal representation until shortly before the deadline for filing the notice of appeal. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension of time. The application for an extension of time was therefore refused. The applicants were also ordered to pay the respondent's costs.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The application for an extension of time within which to file and serve a notice of appeal be refused.

2. The applicants pay the respondent’s costs.

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

WEINBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Established by: WEINBERG J

Full text does not contain this section.