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

AKRAM KARAM
v
PALMONE SHOES PTY LTD (ACN 005 663 141)
[2014] HCASL 204
M58/2014

The applicant applies for special leave to appeal from the orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Nettle and Whelan JJA and Almond AJA) dismissing his application for review of the Registrar's decision refusing to direct that each of a number of applications and two costs appeals be heard on separate days[1]. The Court of Appeal concluded that there was nothing to be gained from the listing of the various applications on different days "apart from more delay and a further waste of scarce resources"[2].
[1]Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 148 at [18(5)] and [45(d)].
[2]Karam v Palmone Shoes Pty Ltd [2014] VSCA 148 at [45(d)].
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 applicant does not identify any matter that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's determination of this matter of practice and procedure.
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

The applicant, Akram Karam, sought special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria's decision, which dismissed his application for review of the Registrar's decision. The Registrar had refused to direct that several applications and two costs appeals be heard on separate days. The Court of Appeal had concluded that listing the various applications on different days would result in more delay and a waste of scarce resources.

The legal issue before the Court was whether there were any grounds for the applicant to appeal the Court of Appeal's decision regarding the listing of the applications on the same day. The Court also had to consider whether there was any utility in making an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application, as it was filed out of time. The applicant did not have legal representation, and the application fell to be determined under rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). Although the applicant had filed an affidavit providing a sufficient explanation for the short delay, the Court had to determine whether the application should be dismissed or if there were any matters that warranted the grant of special leave to appeal.

The Court found that the applicant did not identify any matter that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal from the Court of Appeal's determination of this matter of practice and procedure. The Court concluded that there was no utility in making an order enlarging the time in which to bring the application, as it was filed out of time. The application was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision was made on 10 December 2014 by V.M. Bell and S.J. Gageler.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established