BEANLAND [2026] WASCA 66

[2026] WASCA 66 Page 1 JURISDICTION : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA TITLE OF COURT : THE COURT OF APPEAL (WA) CITATION : BEANLAND [No 2] [2026] WASCA 66 CORAM : VAUGHAN JA HALL JA HEARD : DETERMINED ON THE PAPERS DELIVERED : 8 MAY 2026 FILE NO/S : CACR 82 of 2025 BETWEEN : WILLIAM BEANLAND Appellant ON APPEAL FROM: Jurisdiction : SUPREME COURT OF WESTERN AUSTRALIA Coram : ACTING COURT OF APPEAL REGISTRAR GILICH File Number : CACR 264 of 2012 Catchwords: Appeals - Practice and procedure - Access granted to audio recording of appeal hearing - Application for extension of time to return audio recording - Turns on own facts Legislation: Nil -- 1 of 5 -- [2026] WASCA 66 Page 2 Result: Application for extension of time refused Category: B Representation: Counsel: Appellant : In person Solicitors: Appellant : In person Case(s) referred to in decision(s): Beanland [2026] WASCA 19 Billabong Gold Pty Ltd v Vango Mining Limited [2022] WASCA 35 -- 2 of 5 -- [2026] WASCA 66 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 3 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT: 1 For reasons published on 30 January 2026 the court granted the appellant access to the audio recording of an appeal hearing: Beanland.1 However, access was subject to the appellant proffering an undertaking in terms specified by the court [65] - [67]. One aspect of the undertaking was that the appellant undertook to return the audio recording within three months after its receipt. The court considered that the three months would be ample time to listen to the audio recording but contemplated that the appellant might approach the court if further time was required [66]. 2 The undertaking was proffered on 19 February 2026. The audio recording was received by the appellant on 26 February 2026. Accordingly, the appellant is required to return the audio recording by 26 May 2026. However, on 20 April 2026 the appellant filed an application in an appeal seeking permission to retain the audio recording for a further three months beyond 26 May 2026. The court ordered that the application be determined on the basis of the documents filed and without listing the application for a hearing. 3 The application for an extension of time is supported by the appellant's affidavit sworn 19 April 2026 in which, after referring to visual and physical disabilities he suffers from, the appellant states: I am requesting more time to listen to the recording … I require more time to process the information included in the tape and compare it to the judgment under appeal than I would if I did not suffer the conditions listed above. The visual impairment slows my comparison of the recording with written transcripts and other documents. My combined conditions mean I require assistance from others to carry out this task, which also slows down the process. 4 The affidavit is deficient. There is no suggestion that ill health or other events have prevented the appellant listening to the audio recording. The appellant does not state what, if any, time he has already applied to listening to the audio recording and how far he has progressed in listening to the recording. Nor, based on progress to date, is there any considered estimate of what additional time might be reasonably required to listen to the audio recording. The affidavit does no more than assert that the appellant requires more time to process information and that his progress is slowed down because he requires assistance. 1 Beanland [2026] WASCA 19. -- 3 of 5 -- [2026] WASCA 66 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 4 5 The audio recording is of a two-day appeal hearing - meaning that, by way of reasonable and probable inference, there is no more than 10 hours of audio recording. Even taking into account the visual and physical disabilities suffered by the appellant it should have been possible for the appellant to have listened to the audio recording in the three months allowed. The appellant's affidavit does not contend to the contrary. 6 The court may, by order, extend the period within which a party is required or authorised to do any act in any proceedings: Rules of the Supreme Court 1971 (WA), O 3 r 5; Supreme Court (Court of Appeal) Rules 2005 (WA), r 5(4). Order 3 r 5(1) is remedial and confers a broad power on the court to relieve against an injustice: Billabong Gold Pty Ltd v Vango Mining Limited.2 7 No injustice warranting the three-month extension of time sought by the appellant has been demonstrated. The appellant's perfunctory affidavit, which fails to address the salient issues for the court's consideration, is inadequate to satisfy us that the extension sought is in the interests of justice. To cater for the possibility that the appellant has deferred listening to the audio recording pending the determination of the application for an extension of time we will allow a short extension of time. But this will be limited to the time that the application has been pending before the court (ie 18 days - as this falls on a weekend we will instead provide for the extension to be the next business day). 8 For the foregoing reasons we make an order as follows on the appellant's application in an appeal dated 20 April 2026: The time for the appellant to comply with par 4 of his undertaking to the court (by returning the audio recording to the Court of Appeal registrar at the Supreme Court of Western Australia) is extended from 26 May 2026 to 15 June 2026. 2 Billabong Gold Pty Ltd v Vango Mining Limited [2022] WASCA 35 [47], [65], [73]. -- 4 of 5 -- [2026] WASCA 66 JUDGMENT OF THE COURT Page 5 I certify that the preceding paragraph(s) comprise the reasons for decision of the Supreme Court of Western Australia. PD Associate to the Hon Justice Vaughan 8 MAY 2026 -- 5 of 5 --