The application for extension of time and leave to appeal was dismissed with fixed costs of $4,000. The Court reaffirmed that unverified assertions about language barriers and lack of legal representation are insufficient to explain delay in filing; that lack of prejudice to the respondent is not itself a reason to grant an extension; and that complaints about weight given to factors in a discretionary decision rarely establish House v The King error. The decision confirms that where proposed appeal grounds are manifestly hopeless, extending time would be inutile.
The full text is available to signed-in members.