Turner, A v Trevorrow, R.W Summary

I ,

JUDGMENT No. ...14.4..,./ .,..~~,,,

--- -1

. .- -

.. -- - -

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA ) !
l

VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY NO. VG 376 of 1992

\ i

GENEFAL DIVISION

B E T W E E N :

ALAN TURNER i ,

Applicant F I -

RONALD WILLIAM TREVORROW

JUDGE: Heerey J
DATE: 16 September 1993
PLACE : Melbourne

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

I propose to extend the time for appeal from

delivered by Northrop J on 29 July 1993. As his Honour saia,. the case did give rise to some difficult questions of law, mainly as to the question whether the debtor was carrying on business in Australia through an agent. The time that has elapsed since the period fixed for filing a notice of appeal

is not very great. It amounts to some 12 or 13 days.

The respondent has not advanced any particular grounds of prejudice which might arise if the appeal were to proceed and i

It is true that the debtor was less than efficient in looking after his own interests, but that is partly explained by the fact that he was residing overseas and understandably he did not have ready money available to put his solicitor in funds immediately.

8

.- - - -- -.

. - -. - . - - - .- -- - -

-

2 . -i I t

I think in all the circumstances I ought to extend the time

: =

for filing and serving the notice of appeal until 30 September I..
I_

1993 nunc pro tunc. I will order the applicant pay the 1

respondent's costs of the application.

I certify that this and the
preceding page are a true

copy of the reasons for l .
judgment of his Honour M r I
Justice Heerey. I
Dated: 16September 1993

Q!L@L~L. ssociate

Appearances

Counsel for the applicant: Mr B Scheid

- Solicitor for the applicant: Jack Di Natale

Counsel for the respondent: Mr C Hussey
Solicitor for the respondent: Hussey & CO
Date of hearing: 16 September 1993

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Alan Turner versus Ronald William Trevorrow was heard in the Federal Court of Australia in Melbourne, specifically in the General Division of the Victoria District Registry. The applicant, Alan Turner, sought an extension of time to appeal a decision delivered by Northrop J on 29 July 1993. The dispute primarily involved complex legal questions concerning whether the debtor, Ronald William Trevorrow, was conducting business in Australia through an agent. The primary issue before the court was whether to extend the time for filing and serving the notice of appeal, given the limited period that had lapsed since the original deadline and the lack of significant prejudice to the respondent if the appeal were to proceed.

Heerey J considered the circumstances of the case, noting that while the debtor was not very efficient in managing his interests, this was partly due to his residence overseas and the unavailability of immediate funds to support his legal representation. The court was persuaded that the delay in filing the notice of appeal was not substantial, amounting to approximately 12 or 13 days. The respondent did not provide any specific grounds of prejudice that would arise if the appeal were allowed to proceed. Given these considerations, the court concluded that the time for filing and serving the notice of appeal should be extended to 30 September 1993 nunc pro tunc. Additionally, the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

The final orders of the court reflect the decision to extend the time for appeal and to require the applicant to bear the respondent's costs. The reasoning provided by Heerey J demonstrates a careful balance between the interests of both parties, ultimately favouring the allowance of the appeal due to the minor delay and absence of substantial prejudice.

Turner, A v Trevorrow, R.W

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established

for filing and serving the notice of appeal until 30 September	I..
I_

copy of the reasons for	l .
judgment of his Honour *M r*	I
Justice Heerey.	I
Dated: 16September 1993
Q!L@L~L.	ssociate

Counsel for the applicant:	Mr B Scheid
- Solicitor for the applicant:	Jack Di Natale
Counsel for the respondent:	Mr C Hussey
Solicitor for the respondent:	Hussey & CO
Date of hearing:	16 September 1993