Legal Research
Cases
Campbell v State of New South Wales

Campbell v State of New South Wales

Case [1994] HCATrans 394

Appeal

Civil Procedure

No judgment structure available for this case.

Type to search within this case.

•

.

•

•

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry

Sydney No S36 of 1994
B e t w e e n -
WILLIAM JAMES CAMPBELL

Applicant

and
STATE OF NEW SOUTH WALES

Respondent

Application for special leave
to appeal

BRENNAN J
DAWSON J

MCHUGH J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT BRISBANE ON THURSDAY, 30 JUNE 1994, AT 10.02 AM

Campbell

30/6/94

McHUGH J: This application for special leave to appeal was

considered by Justices Deane, Toohey and myself.
Having read the written submissions of the applicant in support of the application, we have
come to the conclusion that the proposed appeal
would not enjoy sufficient prospect of success to
warrant a grant of special leave. Accordingly the
application for special leave is refused with
costs.

AT 10.03 AM THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED SINE DIE

Campbell

30/6/94

Details

AGLC: Campbell v State of New South Wales [1994] HCATrans 394
Case: [1994] HCATrans 394
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

This matter concerned an application for special leave to appeal brought by William James Campbell against the State of New South Wales before the High Court of Australia. The applicant sought permission to appeal a decision, though the specific nature of the dispute or the lower court's decision is not detailed in the provided transcript.

The High Court was required to determine whether the applicant's proposed appeal possessed sufficient prospects of success to justify the granting of special leave. This involved an assessment of the merits of the intended appeal based on the written submissions provided by the applicant.

The Court, comprising Justices Deane, Toohey, and McHugh, considered the applicant's written submissions. After reviewing these materials, the Justices concluded that the proposed appeal did not demonstrate a sufficient likelihood of success. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

Orders