BDQ16 v Honourable Justice Flick

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

BDQ16

v

HONOURABLE JUSTICE FLICK & ORS

[2018] HCASL 355
S249/2018

  1. Pursuant to r 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the applicant seeks an extension of time in which to bring this application for leave to appeal from a decision of Justice Gordon. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of that decision, and so it would be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.

  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.

V.M. Bell
14 November 2018 		S.J. Gageler
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read BDQ16 v Honourable Justice Flick 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
[2018] HCASL 355
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of BDQ16 v Honourable Justice Flick involved an application by BDQ16 for an extension of time to bring an application for leave to appeal from a decision made by Justice Gordon. The application was made pursuant to rule 41.02.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) and was heard in the Supreme Court of the Northern Territory. The primary issue before the court was whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the decision made by Justice Gordon, which would render the extension of time futile.

The court examined the legal framework provided by the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) and considered the merits of the application in light of the circumstances presented. The court found that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of Justice Gordon's decision and, as such, granting the extension of time sought by BDQ16 would be futile. Consequently, the court exercised its discretion under rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

In reaching this conclusion, the court emphasised the importance of ensuring that applications for extensions of time are not granted in circumstances where the underlying decision is considered to be correct and the extension would serve no useful purpose. The court's reasoning was grounded in the principle that the integrity of the legal process must be upheld, and futile applications should be dismissed to prevent unnecessary delays. The court's decision was consistent with the established legal principles governing the granting of extensions of time in appellate proceedings.

The final orders of the court dismissed the application for an extension of time and directed the Registrar to prepare the necessary documentation to formalise the dismissal. The decision underscores the importance of adhering to the procedural rules and ensuring that applications are assessed on their merits, taking into account the futility of the proposed extension in the context of a correct underlying decision.

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.