Conroy v Cresswell & Anor

CONROY
v
CRESSWELL & ANOR
[2024] HCASL 143
S8/2024

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from part of the judgment of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) in its appellate jurisdiction (McClelland DCJ), allowing an appeal from a judgment of a single judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 2) (Judge Obradovic).
The proposed appeal has insufficient prospects of success and does not raise a question of law of public importance. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
9 May 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Conroy sought an extension of time to appeal part of a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia, which had allowed an appeal from a judgment of a single judge of the same court. The application was heard in the High Court, which was required to determine whether the extension should be granted. The legal issue before the court was whether the proposed appeal had sufficient prospects of success and whether it raised a question of law of public importance.

The court found that the proposed appeal had insufficient prospects of success and did not raise a question of law of public importance. The appeal was considered to be futile, and therefore the extension of time was refused. The court was satisfied that the applicant had not demonstrated that the appeal would result in a different outcome or that it raised a significant legal issue. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and costs were awarded against the applicant.

This decision highlights the stringent criteria that must be met for an extension of time to be granted in relation to an appeal to the High Court. The court emphasised that the proposed appeal must have a real prospect of success and must raise a question of law of public importance. In this case, the court was not persuaded that these criteria were met, and therefore the application was refused. The refusal of special leave to appeal and the award of costs against the applicant serve as a reminder of the importance of demonstrating the merits of an appeal before seeking to extend the time for doing so.

No further orders were made by the court.

Keep reading for free

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established