YILMAZ & YILMAZ

In the matter of Yilmaz & Yilmaz, the parties were involved in a family law dispute which was ultimately heard by Le Poer Trench J. The husband sought an extension of time to appeal the judge's orders, arguing that the appeal had merit and that there would be no injustice in allowing the extension. Additionally, the husband sought to challenge the valuation of property and the effect of previous consent orders on the current dispute. The wife, on the other hand, argued that the appeal was without merit and that there was no basis for the husband's application for an extension of time.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether there was any merit in the husband's appeal and if allowing an extension of time would cause an injustice. The court also had to determine the effect of the consent orders on the current dispute and whether the husband's expert evidence should have been admitted. Furthermore, the court considered whether the husband's previous inaction in other proceedings precluded him from pursuing the current appeal.

In deciding the matter, the court found that the husband's appeal was without merit and that there was no basis for the assertion that the orders of February 2000 were based on incorrect valuation. The court held that the consent orders of August 2002 had superseded the earlier orders, rendering them ineffective. The court also found that the husband's previous inaction in other proceedings precluded him from pursuing the current appeal. The judge concluded that granting an extension of time would be futile, as the appeal was hopeless, unarguable, and bound to fail.

The court dismissed the husband's application for an extension of time and ordered that the husband and wife pay the wife's costs of and incidental to the application as assessed or agreed. The court found that there was no merit in the husband's appeal and that granting an extension of time would not cause an injustice, as the appeal was hopeless, unarguable, and bound to fail. The court also found that the husband's previous inaction in other proceedings precluded him from pursuing the current appeal.