Ahern & Anor v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

AHERN & ANOR

v

AON RISK SERVICES AUSTRALIA LTD & ANOR

[2022] HCASL 7
S140/2021

  1. An extension of time is required for this application to proceed.  The applicants identify no question of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider.  An appeal to this Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.  It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time.

  2. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman
10 February 2022
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Ahern & Anor v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2022] HCASL 7
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Ahern & Anor v Aon Risk Services Australia Ltd, the applicants sought an extension of time to file an appeal against the decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The applicants were seeking to appeal a decision that dismissed their claims for damages arising from an alleged breach of duty by the respondents in relation to an insurance policy. The appeal was heard in the High Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file their appeal. The applicants argued that there were exceptional circumstances that warranted an extension, and that the appeal had a sufficient prospect of success. The respondents, however, contended that there were no exceptional circumstances and that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

The court considered the arguments put forward by both parties and found that the applicants had not identified any question of principle which it would be in the interest of justice to consider. The court further found that an appeal to the High Court would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The court held that it would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time. The applicants' application for an extension of time was dismissed with costs.

The court did not make any further orders in relation to the appeal. The decision of the Supreme Court of South Australia dismissing the applicants' claims for damages remained unchanged. The applicants were not granted leave to appeal to the High Court, and the respondents were not required to respond to the appeal. The matter was concluded with the dismissal of the application for an extension of time.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

Full text does not contain this section.

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.