Cappelleri & Anor v Cappelleri & Ors

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

CAPPELLERI & ANOR

v

CAPPELLERI & ORS

[2024] HCASL 325
M78/2024

  1. The first applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Emerton P, McLeish and Macaulay JJA) which dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Moore J).

  2. The application for special leave to appeal does not sufficiently expose any legal issue suitable for determination by this Court and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision. The application is therefore an unsuitable vehicle to consider the relationship between proceedings for a declaration and limitation provisions.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused with the first applicant to pay the costs of the respondents.

    Gageler CJ
    Gordon J
    Edelman J
    Steward J
    Gleeson J
    Jagot J
    Beech-Jones J

    5 December 2024

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cappelleri & Anor v Cappelleri & Ors 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
[2024] HCASL 325
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The application for special leave to appeal in Cappelleri & Anor v Cappelleri & Ors [2024] HCASL 325 concerns a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which dismissed an appeal brought by the first applicant. The original matter, heard by Moore J in the Supreme Court of Victoria, involved proceedings for a declaration and an appeal against the limitation provisions. The first applicant sought to challenge the Court of Appeal's decision, arguing that the appeal court had not properly considered the legal issues involved in the relationship between the proceedings for a declaration and the limitation provisions.

The central legal issues in this case revolved around whether the Court of Appeal had correctly interpreted and applied the limitation provisions in the context of the proceedings for a declaration. The first applicant argued that the Court of Appeal had overlooked certain critical aspects of the law, which necessitated a re-examination of the case. However, the High Court found that the application for special leave to appeal did not adequately expose any legal issue suitable for determination, and there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's decision.

In reaching its decision, the High Court emphasised that the application for special leave to appeal had not successfully articulated a legal issue of sufficient importance to warrant further consideration by the Court. The judges noted that the Court of Appeal's judgment was well-reasoned and that the legal principles applied were consistent with established case law. Consequently, the High Court refused the application for special leave to appeal and ordered the first applicant to pay the costs of the respondents.

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.