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 toMARTHA 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 APPLICANTTHEONI TSIMIKLIS
SECOND APPLICANTAND:
KENNETH STEWART SELLERS (as Trustee of the property of Martha Tsimiklis, a bankrupt)
RESPONDENTJUDGE:
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 APPLICANTTHEONI TSIMIKLIS
SECOND APPLICANTAND:
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
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
- AGLC
- Tsimiklis v Sellers [2003] FCA 1257
- Case
- [2003] FCA 1257
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Established by: WEINBERG J
Full text does not contain this section.