Chisak v Presot & Anor

Case [2023] HCASL 77


CHISAK

v

PRESOT & ANOR

[2023] HCASL 77
S9/2023

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (White JA, Macfarlan and Gleeson JJA agreeing). The application raises no question of principle and the finding of testamentary capacity was plainly open on the facts. The proposed appeal has no prospects of success and, therefore, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.  

  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.

J.J. Edelman J.S. Gleeson
11 May 2023

Continue reading Chisak v Presot & Anor

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Chisak v Presot & Anor [2023] HCASL 77
Case
[2023] HCASL 77
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Chisak v Presot & Anor, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a judgment from the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involved a dispute over testamentary capacity, where the applicant aimed to challenge the findings made by the Court of Appeal. The application was brought before the High Court under the provisions of r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth).

The primary legal issue before the court was whether to grant the applicant an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal. The court had to consider the merits of the proposed appeal, the prospects of success, and whether the application raised any questions of principle. Additionally, the court needed to assess whether the findings of testamentary capacity were plainly open on the facts presented.

The High Court found that the proposed appeal had no prospects of success, and therefore, granting an extension of time would be futile. The findings of testamentary capacity were deemed plainly open on the facts, and no questions of principle were raised. As a result, the court dismissed the application for an extension of time. Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision was made on 11 May 2023 by J.J. Edelman and J.S. Gleeson.

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.