Ford v La Forrest [2001] QCA 455

APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - QUEENSLAND - TIME FOR APPEAL - EXTENSION OF TIME - GENERAL PRINCIPLES AS TO GRANT OR REFUSAL - where applicant was late by only one day - whether appeal plainly hopeless so as not to allow extension of time

CONTRACT - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE - OFFER - TIME FOR EXERCISE - where the applicant was unsuccessful in an action for alleged personal injuries against various defendants - where she filed a notice of appeal against that decision - where she received two offers of settlement of her appeal conditional upon her discontinuance of her appeal action - where the offers were open for seven and four days respectively - where the seven day offer was "open for acceptance for a period of seven (7) days only - where the applicant accepted both offers - where the applicant then rejected both offers and refused to discontinue her appeal action - where the trial judge concluded the parties had reached a binding compromise agreement and that the applicant's appeal had been compromised

CONTRACT - GENERAL CONTRACTUAL PRINCIPLES - OFFER AND ACCEPTANCE - ACCEPTANCE - LEGAL PRINCIPLES - WITHIN WHAT TIME - where the applicant accepted the seven day offer on the last day of the offer after business hours - whether the time for acceptance of the offer ran from the actual hour it was received - where the law does not in general recognise fractions of a day - where the proper interpretation of the offer was that it would expire at the end of the seventh full day after receipt - where the form of words used by the applicant - 'I am prepared to accept this offer' was not a mere statement of intention to consider but constituted a binding acceptance - Giblin distinguished

EQUITY - UNDUE INFLUENCE AND DURESS - where the applicant argued she should have been advised to seek independent legal advice - where there is no onus on a party in adversarial negotiations to advise the adversary to seek legal advice - Amadio distinguished

Acts Interpretation Act 1954 (Qld), s 38

Electronic Transactions Act 1999 (Cwth), s 4, s 8(1).

Commercial Bank of Australia Ltd v Amadio [1983] HCA 14; (1983) 151 CLR 447, distinguished

Duncan v Mendes [1998] NSWSC 209, Appeal No 40757 of 1996, 29 May 1998, referred to

Ex parte Tooheys Ltd; Re Butler [1934] NSWStRp 26; (1934) 34 SR (NSW) 277, referred to

Giblin v Duggan, Appeal No 3105 of 1980, 8 March 1981, distinguished

Lester v Garland [1808] EngR 326; (1808) 33 ER 748, referred to

Morris v FAI General Insurance Co Ltd [1996] 1 Qd R 495, referred to

Newton, Bellamy & Wolf v State Government Insurance Office (Qld) [1986] 1 Qd R 431, referred to

Prowse v McIntyre [1961] HCA 79; (1961) 111 CLR 264, referred to

Re North; Ex parte Hasluck [1895] 2 QB 264, referred to

Watson v Issell (1890) VLR 613, referred to

A MacSporran for the third, fourth and fifth respondents

Quinlan, Miller & Treston for the first and second respondents

Crown Solicitor (Qld) for the third, fourth and fifth respondents