THE INSURANCE OFFICE OF AUSTRALIA LTD. V. THE COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS COMMISSIONER 12/1949

THE INSURANCE OFFICE OF AUSTRALIA LID. ve

THE COMMONWEALTH RAILWAYS COMMISSIONER

JUDGMENT KITTO J.

|Z of \G4A4

THE INSURANCE OFFICE OF AUSTRALIA LTD.

Vv

THE COMMONWSALTH RAILWAYS COMMISSIONER JUDGMENT KITTO J.

The appellant applied to me on summons for an order under the second paragraph of rule 12 of Section III of the High Court Rules allowing an extension of the period within which the prescribed security for the costs of the appeal and notice thereof to the respondent might be given although the period of one month after the service of the notice of appeal had expired. I dismissed the summons and stated that I would give my reasons in writing. I now do 50.

Rule 12 is in the following terms:

"Within one month after the service of the notice of appeal, or within such further time as the Court or a Justice allows, or such other time as is prescribed by an order giving leave to appeal, the appellant shall give the prescribed security for the costs of the appeal, and shall give notice thereof to the respondent.

The Court or a Justice may allow an extension of the period of one month although the application for such extension is not made until after the expiration of that period.

The prescribed security shall be given in the Court from which the appeal is brought. If the security is not given within the prescribed time, the appeal shall be deemed to be abandoned.

As soon as the prescribed security is given, the appeal shall be deemed to be duly instituted."

The notice of appeal was filed, and presumably served, on 2hth August 1949. The prescribed security for costs should have been given by 2th September 1949, unless an extension of time had been granted by the Court or a Justice. The security was not s0 given, and no extension of time was applied for until the present summons was filed on llth August 1950. Thus, for nearly eleven