Zippoz Pty Ltd v National Australia Bank Ltd

[2013] NSWCA 113

NSW Court of Appeal

View on CaseLaw

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Extension of time to appeal
4. › Justification for delay
5. › Where applicant repeatedly brought unsuccessful stay proceedings instead of appealing
6. › Where applicant's representative not legally trained but aware of proper avenue
7. › Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW)
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Extension of time to appeal
4. › Prospects of success
5. › Whether proposed appeal had any real prospect of success
6. › Where estoppel claim failed at each essential point on findings of fact
7. › Whether appellate court could interfere with trial judge's findings of fact
1. Practice and Procedure
2. › Appeals
3. › Appellate review of findings of fact
4. › Whether findings glaringly improbable or contrary to compelling inferences
5. › Fox v Percy [2003] HCA 22
1. Equity
2. › Estoppel
3. › Promissory estoppel
4. › Elements
5. › Whether representation clear and unambiguous
6. › Whether reliance established
7. › Whether detriment established
8. › Whether unconscionability established

Quick Take

Where an applicant for extension of time to appeal fails to provide a satisfactory justification for delay, a higher standard may be imposed on the prospects of success than would otherwise be appropriate. Pursuing repeated unsuccessful stay applications in the wrong court does not constitute a satisfactory explanation for delay in filing an appeal. The question of whether Gray lowered the standard of clarity for promissory estoppel representations below that stated in Legione v Hateley was left open.