Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
Jacobs v Wily [2013] FCA 544 Citation: Jacobs v Wily [2013] FCA 544
Parties: KEVIN ROY JACOBS v ANDREW HUGH JENNER WILY
File number: NSD 922 of 2013
Judge: GRIFFITHS J
Date of judgment: 30 May 2013
Catchwords: PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE – application for an extension of time to file a notice of appeal – considerations relevant to the Court's discretion to grant an extension – whether adequate explanation for delay – whether proposed grounds of appeal have reasonable prospects of success
Legislation: Federal Court Rules 2011 r 36.06
Cases cited: Dunlop v Fishburn (No. 3) [2012] FCA 315 Mirembe Pty Ltd v Craig Dangar [2009] NSWSC 94
Date of hearing: 30 May 2013
Place: Sydney
Division: GENERAL DIVISION
Category: Catchwords
Number of paragraphs: 45
Counsel for the Applicant: The applicant appeared in person
Counsel for the Respondent: Mr R Notley
Solicitor for the Respondent: McCormick Williams
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY GENERAL DIVISION NSD 922 of 2013
BETWEEN: KEVIN ROY JACOBS
Applicant
AND: ANDREW HUGH JENNER WILY
Respondent
JUDGE: GRIFFITHS J DATE OF ORDER: 30 MAY 2013 WHERE MADE: SYDNEY
THE COURT ORDERS THAT:
1. The applicant for an extension of time filed on 24 May 2013 is dismissed. 2. The interlocutory application filed on 24 May 2013 is dismissed. 3. The costs of the applications referred to in paragraphs 1 and 2 above are costs in the bankruptcy. Note: Entry of orders is dealt with in Rule 39.32 of the Federal Court Rules 2011.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate