Courtney v Chalfen

COURTNEY
v
CHALFEN
[2021] HCASL 128
B24/2021

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to file the application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Morrison, Philippides and Mullins JJA), dismissing the applicant's appeal from a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Williams J). The Supreme Court had ordered a permanent stay of the applicant's proceedings for want of jurisdiction pursuant to rr 127 and 16 of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) and the Court's inherent jurisdiction.
There is no point in granting an extension of time as the decision of the Court of Appeal is not attended by sufficient doubt and any appeal to this Court would enjoy no prospects of success.
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.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward

5 August 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the matter of Courtney v Chalfen, the applicant sought an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal against the dismissal of their appeal by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Court of Appeal had upheld a decision of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had permanently stayed the applicant's proceedings for want of jurisdiction. The applicant was appealing against the decisions of both the Supreme Court and the Court of Appeal. The legal issues before the High Court involved whether an extension of time should be granted for the application for special leave to appeal, and if an appeal to the High Court would have any prospects of success.

The High Court considered whether there was sufficient doubt about the decision of the Court of Appeal that would warrant an extension of time for the special leave application. The Court found that there was no significant doubt and that any appeal to the High Court would not be successful. The Court of Appeal's decision was sound, and the applicant's appeal had no prospects of success. The High Court also noted that the Supreme Court had correctly exercised its inherent jurisdiction and the relevant rules of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 1999 (Qld) when ordering the permanent stay of the applicant's proceedings.

Based on the above findings, the High Court dismissed the applicant's application for an extension of time to file an application for special leave to appeal. The Court ordered the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The decision of the Court of Appeal, which upheld the permanent stay of the applicant's proceedings, was therefore affirmed. The Court found that there was no sufficient doubt in the decision of the Court of Appeal and that an appeal to the High Court would not be successful.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established