A deliberate decision not to appeal, followed by a change of mind based on fresh or different legal advice, is not a sufficient justification for a significant extension of time to appeal; if it were, there would be little point in having time limits. The fact that an appeal has some prospects of success is merely one factor to be weighed against other factors, including the deliberateness of the delay, and may be outweighed by those other factors. Jackamarra v Krakouer is not authority for the proposition that wherever an appellant demonstrates an arguable case, in the absence of significant prejudice, an extension of time should be granted. For indemnity costs, the mere fact that a court rejected an argument does not demonstrate the argument was hopeless.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 21 later cases that cite this judgment.
5 of the 21 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.