LAW v AUDREY FRANCES HALL as Executrix of the Estate of the late KENNETH DUNCAN HALL

[2009] WASCA 86

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Appeal
2. › Standing to appeal
3. › Third party not a party to proceedings below
4. › Whether just or convenient to allow third party to appeal
1. Appeal
2. › Extension of time
3. › Non-compliance with rules
4. › Gross delay
5. › No satisfactory explanation for delay

Quick Take

A non-party to litigation has no standing to appeal unless directed to be bound by the judgment or it is just and convenient to allow the appeal. Where the non-party's claimed interest is that of a company which can pursue its own claims, it is not just and convenient to allow the non-party individual to appeal. Gross delay of approximately 20 months without satisfactory explanation warrants refusal of an extension of time.

Case Details

Citation[2009] WASCA 86

CourtWASCA

JurisdictionWestern Australia

Unlock so much more with Barrister AI

The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.

Cited by2

Relies on5

2008AUDREY FRANCIS HALL as executrix of the estate of KENNETH DUNCAN HALL v CHINWASC 255
2007AUDREY FRANCES HALL As Executrix of the Will of KENNETH DUNCAN HALL (DEC) v HALLWASC 34
2006Spunter Pty Ltd v Hall & AnorWASC 6
1974Helicopter Sales Pty Ltd v Rotor-Work Pty LtdHCA 32
and 1 more after sign-in

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in