Wheaton v Krawec

Case [2018] FCA 1466


FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Wheaton v Krawec [2018] FCA 1466

Appeal from: Application for extension of time: Wheaton v Krawec [2018] FCA 312
File number(s): TAD 10 of 2018
Judge(s): O'CALLAGHAN J
Date of judgment: 21 September 2018
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to appeal from a decision of a Federal Court judge – where no evidence given – no basis for granting an extension – application dismissed
Date of hearing: 21 September 2018
Registry: Tasmania
Division: General Division
National Practice Area: Commercial and Corporations
Sub-area: General and Personal Insolvency
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 10
Counsel for the Applicant: The Applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Browne

ORDERS

TAD 10 of 2018
BETWEEN:

ANTHONY JOHN WHEATON

Applicant

AND:

ANNA SOPHIA KRAWEC

Respondent

JUDGE:

O'CALLAGHAN J

DATE OF ORDER:

21 SEPTEMBER 2018

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.The applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Kerr J given on 7 March 2018 be dismissed.

2.The costs of this application be paid out of the applicant’s bankrupt estate.

Note:    Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.


REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
(Revised from transcript)

O’CALLAGHAN J:

  1. These reasons for judgment were delivered ex tempore at the hearing on 21 September 2018 and accompany the orders set out above.

  2. In this matter, by application dated 10 April 2018, the applicant, who is self-represented, seeks an extension of time within which to appeal against the decision of Kerr J given on 7 March 2018 (Wheaton v Krawec [2018] FCA 312) ordering that the applicant’s interim application for review of a registrar’s decision not to grant a stay in that proceeding be dismissed, and that orders made by Registrar Browning on 7 December 2017 not be set aside.

  3. The applicant filed an affidavit in support of his application dated 10 April 2018 in which he relevantly deposed as follows:

    I seek to lodge [an] application for an extension of time to appeal.

  4. That is the sum total of the evidence in support of the application. 

  5. At the hearing of the application this morning, I asked Mr Wheaton what he wished to say in support of it. He said two things which, on one view, may be seen to be inconsistent: 

    (1)First, he said that there was no point to pursuing the application for an extension of time to appeal against Kerr J’s decision because “it has lapsed and it has been overtaken by events.”

    (2)Secondly, the applicant said that he wished for the application to be adjourned so that it can be heard together with a number of other proceedings which the applicant seeks to have issued in the Tasmania Registry of this court. 

  6. In my view, given that the applicant was given an ample opportunity to say everything that he wished to say in support of his application for an extension of time and that he was unable to articulate any arguable basis for it, I am bound to dismiss it.

  7. In any event, the applicant has conceded that there is no point to the application because, as he put it, the decision of Kerr J has lapsed and has been overtaken by events. 

  8. In those circumstances, I will decline to order that the matter be adjourned pending the issuance of any further proceedings of an unspecified kind that the applicant may choose to issue in this Registry. 

  9. Mr Browne, who appeared for the respondent, sought his client’s costs to be paid from Mr Wheaton’s bankrupt estate. In all the circumstances, in my view, that is an appropriate order to be made in this case.

  10. Accordingly, I order:

    (1)The applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Kerr J given on 7 March 2018 be dismissed.

    (2)The costs of this application be paid out of the applicant’s bankrupt estate.

I certify that the preceding ten (10) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice O'Callaghan.

Associate:

Dated:        25 September 2018

Details
AGLC
Wheaton v Krawec [2018] FCA 1466
Case
[2018] FCA 1466
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Wheaton v Krawec involved an application by the applicant, Wheaton, for an extension of time to appeal a decision made by Kerr J on 7 March 2018. The respondent, Krawec, opposed the application, arguing that there was no evidence to support the need for an extension. The matter was heard in the Federal Court, where the primary focus was on the procedural aspect of granting extensions for appeals.

The legal issues before the court revolved around the criteria for granting an extension of time to appeal. The court needed to assess whether there was a valid reason for the delay and whether the applicant's circumstances warranted an extension. The respondent argued that the application was without merit, as there was no evidence provided to substantiate the claim for an extension. The court had to determine whether the applicant had met the necessary threshold for an extension and if the application should proceed.

The court found that the applicant had not provided any evidence to support the application for an extension of time. The absence of substantiation meant there was no basis for granting the extension. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time. The court also ordered that the costs of the application be paid out of the applicant's bankrupt estate, as per Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

The final orders of the court were that the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Kerr J was dismissed, and the costs of this application were to be paid out of the applicant's bankrupt estate. This decision underscores the importance of providing adequate evidence to support applications for extensions in legal proceedings.

Orders

Orders of the court

1. The applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Kerr J given on 7 March 2018 be dismissed.

2. The costs of this application be paid out of the applicant’s bankrupt estate.

Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.

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.