Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd (ACN 004 753 333) & Ors

CASPERSZ
v
GARRY & WARREN SMITH PTY LTD (ACN 004 753 333) & ORS
[2024] HCASL 39
M91/2023

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Niall JA) refusing leave to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal (Quigley J).[1] The applicant also seeks special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Niall JA) ordering that the applicant pay the second respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal on a standard basis.[2]
[1] Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd (ACN 004 753 333) [2023] VSCA 264; Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd (ACN 004 753 333) [2022] VCAT 1102.
[2] Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd (ACN 004 753 333) (No 2) [2023] VSCA 277.
The application fails to articulate appropriate grounds of appeal for this Court to consider and does not raise a question of law that is of public importance. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time and special leave sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gleeson J
Beech-Jones J
7 March 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Caspersz v Garry & Warren Smith Pty Ltd (ACN 004 753 333) & Ors concerns an application by Caspersz to the High Court for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The judgment in question was a refusal of leave to appeal a decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. Additionally, the application sought special leave to appeal a subsequent judgment of the Court of Appeal ordering Caspersz to pay the second respondent's costs of the application for leave to appeal on a standard basis.

The primary legal issues the court had to address were whether the application articulated appropriate grounds for appeal and whether it raised a question of law of public importance. The court needed to determine if granting the extension of time and special leave would be futile. This required a thorough examination of the application and its merits, focusing on the grounds provided and the public importance of the legal questions raised.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the application failed to articulate appropriate grounds of appeal that warranted consideration by the High Court. Moreover, the application did not raise a question of law that was of public importance. Consequently, the court concluded that granting the extension of time and special leave sought would be futile. Therefore, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal and the application for special leave to appeal were both refused. The court's decision was based on the lack of appropriate grounds for appeal and the absence of a question of law of public importance.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established