Akram Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd (ACN 005 663 141)

AKRAM KARAM
v
PALMONE SHOES PTY LTD (ACN 005 663 141)
[2014] HCASL 205
M59/2014

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle and Whelan JJA and Almond AJA) refusing an application brought by summons seeking orders setting aside T Forrest J's judgments in two related personal injury proceedings on the ground that each was procured by fraud. The application was dismissed because it was procedurally incompetent[1]. In addition to this difficulty, the Court of Appeal pointed out that there was no evidence that the judgment in either case had been procured by fraud[2].
[1]Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 148 at [30].
[2]Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 148 at [31].
The applicant does not have legal representation and the application falls to be determined under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). It was filed out of time[3]. The applicant has not in terms sought an order that compliance with the time limit be dispensed with[4]. Nonetheless, the applicant has filed an affidavit which provides a sufficient explanation for the short delay. However, for the reasons to be given, there is no utility in making an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application.
[3]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.1 provides that an application shall be filed within 28 days after the judgment below was pronounced.
[4]High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), r 41.02.2.
The Court of Appeal's conclusion was plainly correct. If special leave to appeal were granted, the appeal would have no prospect of success.
The application is dismissed.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

V.M. Bell
10 December 2014 S.J. Gageler

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Akram Karam, an individual, sought special leave to appeal against a decision made by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The original matter was a challenge to two judgments delivered by T Forrest J in personal injury proceedings, where Karam alleged that the judgments were obtained through fraudulent means. The Court of Appeal had dismissed Karam's application on the basis that it was procedurally incompetent and that there was no evidence to support the claim of fraud. The case now comes before the High Court, where the applicant is unrepresented and the application is governed by rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The application was filed beyond the 28-day time limit set by rule 41.02, although the applicant provided an affidavit explaining the delay.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the Court of Appeal's conclusion that the application was procedurally incompetent was correct. Additionally, the court needed to determine if there was any prospect of success for the appeal if special leave were granted. The Court of Appeal had already concluded that the application was not supported by any evidence of fraud and was, therefore, procedurally flawed. This decision was based on the lack of evidence and the procedural misstep of filing the application beyond the stipulated time limit.

The High Court found that the Court of Appeal's decision was correct. The Court held that the application was indeed procedurally incompetent due to the late filing and the absence of evidence to substantiate the fraud allegations. Furthermore, the Court determined that granting special leave to appeal would not lead to a successful outcome, as the appeal would have no prospect of success given these issues. Consequently, the application was dismissed. Under rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to prepare, sign, and seal the order dismissing the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established