Curtis & Anor v Curtis

CURTIS & ANOR
v
CURTIS
[2024] HCASL 263
S83/2024

The applicant seeks an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Leeming JA, Mitchelmore JA and Basten A-JA agreeing). That decision allowed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Elkaim AJ), concerning an application for provision pursuant to s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW).
The application does not involve a question of law that is of public importance and has insufficient prospects of success to make it in the interests of the administration of justice to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
10 October 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Curtis & Anor v Curtis is a case before the High Court of Australia, where the applicants seek an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The initial matter involved an application for provision under s 59 of the Succession Act 2006 (NSW), which was dismissed by the Supreme Court of New South Wales but subsequently allowed by the Court of Appeal. The applicants now wish to appeal to the High Court, but the application for special leave to appeal is beyond the statutory time limit, necessitating an extension of time. The legal issues before the Court were whether the application for special leave to appeal involved a question of law of public importance and whether it had sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal. Additionally, the Court had to consider whether granting an extension of time would be futile.

The Court found that the application for special leave to appeal did not involve a question of law of public importance. The case was primarily a factual dispute concerning the distribution of assets under the Succession Act 2006 (NSW). The Court of Appeal's decision was based on factual findings and did not establish a new legal principle or interpretation. As such, the case did not meet the threshold for being of public importance. Furthermore, the Court held that the prospects of success for the appeal were insufficient. The applicants would need to demonstrate a significant error in the Court of Appeal's decision, which was not apparent from the submissions. The Court found that the appeal was unlikely to succeed, making it futile to grant the extension of time.

Accordingly, the High Court refused the application for an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal. The Court held that the matter did not involve a question of law of public importance and had insufficient prospects of success. The refusal was made with costs, indicating that the Court considered the application to be without merit. The decision underscores the stringent criteria required for granting special leave to appeal, particularly concerning questions of public importance and the prospects of success. The Court's decision ensures that the administration of justice is not unduly burdened by futile appeals.

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