De Angelis v De Angelis [2003] VSC 83

Mr Ahearne, who appears as counsel for the defendant, submitted that the court's jurisdiction was limited by s.99 and that the provisions of the Interpretation of Legislation Act were inapplicable, as I understand his submission, because the section provides that no application shall be heard unless an application is made within six months, therefore the court's jurisdiction is limited and cannot be extended. Mr Ahearne accepted that there were no direct authorities on this point. He referred to some earlier cases. McPherson v. Lawless [1960] VicRp 59; [1960] V.R. 363 dealt with the time for obtaining an order to review an order of a Court of Petty Sessions under s.155 of the Justices Act 1958. The court there decided that where the time expired on a Sunday or other day on which the court was not sitting, there was nothing in the section which could give rise to the interpretation that the period was extended to the next court sitting day. The provisions are different, and no question of a provision such as that which is now before me in the Interpretation of Legislation Act was relevant in that case. I am not really assisted by it. It was applied by the Full Court in Morton v. Hampson [1962] VicRp 50; [1962] V.R. 364 to the time limit for an appeal under s.74(2)(a) of the County Court Act 1958, but again there was no question there of the Interpretation of Legislation Act provisions. The only other case to which I was referred by Mr Ahearne was the case of Lord v. Australian Safeway Stores Pty Ltd [1995] VICSC 212; [1996] 1 V.R. 614, but that case seems to deal with questions relating to applications for an extension of the limitation period and does not really bear, so far as I can ascertain, on the issues which I presently have to decide.

De Angelis v De Angelis [2003] VSC 83 | Case summary | Zoe

At a glance

Court

Decision date

Before

Source

Judgment (2 paragraphs)

Parties

Cases Cited (1)