LAW SOCIETY OF NEW SOUTH WALES v VEGHELYI SUPREME COURT OF NEW SOUTH WALES COURT OF APPEAL MAHONEY JA 24 February 1992 [1992] NSWCA 251 Mahoney JA This is an application seeking, in terms, that y the document presented as an amended notice of appeal be dismissed on the ground of it being filed outside of time, and without leave of the court. The claimant, the Law Society, contends that the opponent, Mr Veghelyi, has been struck off the roll by an order made on 29 April 1991. A summons was filed upon the basis, perhaps, that it would be sufficient to contest before this Court the correctness or appropriateness of that order. On 27 May 1991 the summons was dismissed by Meagher JA b without prejudice to Mr Veghelyi making an application for an extension of time for the filing of a notice of appeal. No extension of time has been sought but a document described as "Amended Notice of Appeal" has been filed in court on 17 December 1991. When the matter was brought before the court this morning the opponent sought to rely upon his affidavit of 20 February 1992 which contains material suggesting there were reasons why the notice of appeal was not filed in time. Whether it was directed to that purpose or not it is not necessary to determine. The Law Society, in the circumstances, desires an adjournment in order to deal with the material set forth in that affidavit. It has asked for an adjournment for three weeks. There seems to be no objection which can properly be pressed to such an adjournment and I propose to grant it. I should say that, in the course of the short hearing of the application so far as it has proceeded, objection has been taken to the application to dismiss the amended notice of appeal on the ground that it is misconceived. It is said it is an amended notice of appeal and s81 preserves the validity of it. Whether or not this is so it would appear appropriate that an application be made for the dismissal of it as it has been filed out of time. However, that is not a matter on which I need express any final view at this stage. I will stand the matter over for three weeks. The costs of today will be costs in the motion and the matter should not be treated as part heard before me but may be dealt with by any other judge. The Registrar informs me there is an appointment on 6 March 1992 to settle the index. Perhaps it may be convenient to vacate that date now and the parties can consult with the Registrar for another date depending on the outcome of the present motion.