A clearly arguable appeal ground — even one that has succeeded in parallel proceedings before a different judge — is insufficient to warrant an extension of time to appeal where the delay is 16 months, the applicant has been actively litigating on other fronts during the delay period, and the respondent has incurred substantial costs in reliance on the judgment. The mere fact that judges of the same court disagree about a legal principle does not elevate the disputed principle to one of general public importance for the purposes of an extension of time application.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.