DIM FURNITURE PTY LTD v HOLMES SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 6 November 1989 [1989] NSWCA 59 Mahoney JA This is an application by the claimant DIM Furniture Pty Ltd for anextension of time for filing a notice of appeal to this Court. The evidence indicates that on 20 September 1989 his Honour Judge Moran of the Compensation Court gave a judgment in favour of the opponent. On 28 September advice was received from counsel in relation to the prospects of success on an appeal against the judgment. On 2 October 1989 the client's insurer was informed of that advice. The client's insurer delayed for some time in giving instructions for the lodgment of the notice of appeal. The appeal has proceeded upon the basis that no leave to appeal is necessary and the relevant time for appeal expired on 8 October 1989. I shall deal with the matter on that basis. The period for which extension of time is sought is comparatively small. However, there has been little explanation of why the appeal was not lodged in time. It is said merely it was necessary for one person in the organisation of the insurer to discuss the matter with another person in the organisation and to get instructions regarding the lodgment of the appeal. That is cryptic in the extreme. The court would ordinarily expect something more substantial in order to support an application of this kind. However, there is no evidence to suggest that there is prejudice to the opponent in this matter other than such prejudice as might exist from the fact of a few days delay. The principles on which the court acts are not substantially in dispute. In the circumstances, in my opinion the appropriate order to he made is that the time for filing the notice of appeal be extended up to and including 15 November 1989, and the applicant to pay the costs of the application. HEDMAN: Would you Honour consider granting fourteen days from today? HIS HONOUR: Why do you need fourteen days? HEDMAN: That is the normal appeal frame. HIS HONOUR: I do not know that there is a normal time. Is there any reason why Wednesday of next week is not sufficient time? HEDMAN: No.