Cappello & Anor v Lyons

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

CAPPELLO & ANOR
v

LYONS
[2023] HCASL 189
S94/2023

  1. An extension of time is required for this application to proceed. This application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Simpson AJA, Meagher JA and Griffiths AJA agreeing) dismissing an appeal from the District Court of New South Wales (Olsson DCJ) is an unsuitable vehicle to consider any issue concerning the scope of advocate's immunity and has no prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.

  2. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Edelman J

    Jagot J

    7 December 2023

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cappello & Anor v Lyons 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
[2023] HCASL 189
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Cappello & Anor v Lyons is a legal matter involving an appeal against a decision by the Supreme Court of New South Wales Court of Appeal. The appeal was dismissed by the Court of Appeal from a decision of the District Court of New South Wales. The applicants sought an extension of time to appeal to the High Court, but their application was refused. The dispute centres around the scope of advocate's immunity and whether the application for special leave to appeal should be considered.

The legal issues that the court needed to decide were whether the scope of advocate's immunity was a matter that could be considered in the context of this appeal and whether granting an extension of time for the appeal would be appropriate. The court needed to determine if the applicants' application for special leave to appeal was an unsuitable vehicle to consider the issue of advocate's immunity and whether the appeal had any prospects of success.

The court found that the scope of advocate's immunity was not a matter that could be considered in the context of this appeal, and that the application for special leave to appeal was an unsuitable vehicle to consider it. The court also found that the appeal had no prospects of success, and therefore it would be futile to grant the extension of time that was sought. The court concluded that the application for special leave to appeal should be refused. Edelman JJ and Jago delivered the judgment on 7 December 2023.

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.