Anna Myfanwy St Clair v Gary Taylor

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

ANNA MYFANWY ST CLAIR

v

GARY TAYLOR

[2021] HCASL 143
B22/2021

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The application raises no issue of principle that would warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be refused. Hence it would be futile to grant the 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.

S.J Gageler J.S Gleeson
12 August 2021
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Anna Myfanwy St Clair v Gary Taylor 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
[2021] HCASL 143
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter in question involved Anna Myfanwy St Clair, the applicant, seeking an extension of time within which to file an application for special leave to appeal a decision from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The respondent to the application was Gary Taylor. The application for an extension of time was before the High Court, specifically a bench of the Full Court, which included Justices Gageler and Gleeson.

The central legal issue was whether the applicant, Anna Myfanwy St Clair, should be granted an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Queensland Court of Appeal. The court had to consider whether the application raised any issue of principle that warranted the grant of special leave to appeal and whether granting an extension would be futile.

In their judgment, the Justices Gageler and Gleeson held that the application raised no issue of principle that warranted the grant of special leave to appeal. The Justices determined that granting the extension of time would be futile. Accordingly, they directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision was made pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

No further orders were made by the court beyond directing the Registrar to dismiss 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.