Badior v Morrison; Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd v Morrison

BADIOR
v
MORRISON
S30/2018
HUNTER QUARRIES PTY LTD
v
MORRISON
S31/2018
[2018] HCASL 126

These applications for special leave to appeal require extensions of time to enable them to proceed. Neither application is a suitable vehicle for the resolution of a question of legal principle as would warrant the grant of special leave. In addition, the prospects of success of an appeal are not such as to warrant the grant of special leave. That being so, it would be futile to extend the time for making the applications. The applications should be dismissed.
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 applications.

S.J. Gageler
10 May 2018 P.A. Keane

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, two applications for special leave to appeal were filed by Badior and Hunter Quarries Pty Ltd against Morrison. Both applicants sought extensions of time to proceed with their appeals, but the applications were ultimately dismissed by the Court. The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the applications warranted an extension of time and the grant of special leave to appeal. The Court found that the applications did not present a suitable vehicle for the resolution of a question of legal principle and that the prospects of success for the appeals were not compelling enough to warrant the grant of special leave. As a result, the Court determined that it would be futile to extend the time for making the applications.

The High Court considered the criteria for granting special leave to appeal, including the potential for the resolution of a significant legal principle and the prospects of success of the appeal. The Court determined that the applications did not meet the necessary criteria and, therefore, the applications should be dismissed. The Court emphasised that the applications were not suitable for resolving a question of legal principle, and the prospects of success of the appeals were insufficient to justify the grant of special leave. The Court concluded that extending the time for making the applications would serve no useful purpose, and therefore, the applications were dismissed.

The High Court's decision highlights the importance of meeting the criteria for granting special leave to appeal, including the resolution of significant legal principles and the prospects of success of the appeal. The Court's decision in this case serves as a reminder to applicants that they must demonstrate the necessity for an extension of time and the potential for a successful appeal to warrant the grant of special leave. The Court's determination that the applications did not meet these criteria and were, therefore, unsuitable for resolution, reinforces the importance of meeting the necessary criteria for special leave to appeal.

The High Court dismissed both applications for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the applications. The decision serves as a reminder to applicants that they must meet the criteria for granting special leave to appeal, including the resolution of significant legal principles and the prospects of success of the appeal. The Court's decision in this case highlights the importance of meeting the necessary criteria for special leave to appeal and the futility of extending the time for making applications that do not meet these criteria.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established