Cumming v The Minister for Planning

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

CUMMING

v

THE MINISTER FOR PLANNING & ORS

[2020] HCASL 260
M90/2020

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Tate, McLeish and Osborn JJA) is not an appropriate vehicle for the consideration of the question of principle raised. An appeal would have insufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. The application should be dismissed.

  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 with costs.

M.M Gordon J.J Edelman
3 December 2020
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Cumming v The Minister for Planning 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
[2020] HCASL 260
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The case of Cumming v The Minister for Planning was an application for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Supreme Court of Victoria's Court of Appeal. The appellant, Cumming, sought to appeal a decision regarding a planning permit for property. The case was heard and dismissed by the High Court of Australia, which held that the application for special leave to appeal was not appropriate and would have insufficient prospects of success.

The primary legal issue before the High Court was whether the application for special leave to appeal was an appropriate vehicle to consider the question of principle raised in the appeal. The Court held that it was not, as the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success. The Court considered the relevant legal principles and the merits of the case in coming to this conclusion.

The Court's reasoning was based on the consideration of the relevant legal principles and the merits of the case. The Court found that the application for special leave to appeal was not an appropriate vehicle to consider the question of principle raised in the appeal, as the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success. The Court also noted that the appeal did not raise a question of principle of general importance, which is a requirement for special leave to appeal. The Court's decision was based on a thorough analysis of the legal issues and the merits of the case.

The final order of the Court was to dismiss the application for special leave to appeal with costs. The Court held that the application was not an appropriate vehicle to consider the question of principle raised in the appeal, and that the appeal would have insufficient prospects of success. The Court also directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

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.