Vie. Nos ie) 1 BREE COU OF Wem TAY supewent No, LOT. it "aoa BIST RiE SAGISRY V.G, No. 1 of 1979 BETWEEN: WILLIAM MoMINN BT BIT LINGHURS? Applicant ~and~ AUST AuSeEALEA AND NEW ZEALAND , BANKIN NG CRON ue 2 JTMETED Respondent " moe . eve nee . i KEASONS FOR JUDGMERT 6 February 1979 a - SMITHERS J, I do not propose to grant either of the two appliqutions which are befure me. Ordinarily the court is willing to extend the time in « uatter of this kind but it does require te be satisfied that the expivetion of the: time which is now causing Mr, Billinghurat his difficulty was due to seme oversight or difficulty ana that it would be fair and reasonable to oxtend the time, of course whether it is fair or | res sonable vo oxtead the tine 'p]so depends upon the nature of abe case vaich ie desired ta be put An eppeal, la this case I ex not satisfied ebowt any of the matter. which have besa put lo me by fi. Bidiinghurst end there is the very important factor that none of them relate to a matter of substance. He concedes that the debt of the * petitioning creditor wes substantially as alleged and. that there are many other debts ruming into quite a substantial sum of money. His three grounds are first, the question of the service of the petition. That does not go to a matter of substance. The second natter is that there was undue liberality on the part of the primary. Judge in granting amendmnents to the petition. In the absence of some steps ; . . taken by the applicant at the trial to seek further time to deal with matters arising out of the amendments that does "not seem to me to be a matter of substance, The third matter is that there was some error 'on the part of the court dn limiting the evidence desired to be lead by Mr. Billinghurst. 'That ceases to be a matter of substance in view of the concessions which were made by Mr. Billinghurst. In addition, none of the grounds stated to me appear to me to give any probable chance of success to Mr. Billinghurst on appeal. And of course I am influenced by the fact that I really am not satisfied that there is a genuine desire to proceed with an appeal at this time. If there had been, I think there would have been evidence of 'efforts mage to contact thé necessary legal advisers, evidence which would have indicated much more determination on I the part of Mr. Billinghurst tomt advice then is shown. is not as though Mr. Billinghurst is unacquainted with the ey] legal profession, To allow the time to go by only making a telephone conversation to a solicitor who was on holidays. and could not be contacted, when there are many other : ' solicitors available in thls city, is evidence of a per— functory approach to the whole matter, which makes me feel ; thet this whole proceeding is quite artificial and undertaken merely in the hope of some indirect advantage of some kind, Accordingly I dismiss the applications.