Dickson v Hassum & Levitt Pty Ltd & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

DICKSON

v

HASSUM & LEVITT PTY LTD & ANOR

[2024] HCASL 316
B51/2024

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Mullins P, Boddice JA and Applegarth J), dismissing an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Muir J).

  2. The application does not raise any appropriate question of law or principle for this Court to consider and there is insufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time sought.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gleeson J
    Beech-Jones J

    5 December 2024

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dickson v Hassum & Levitt Pty Ltd & Anor 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
[2024] HCASL 316
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, Dickson, sought an extension of time to appeal against a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Court of Appeal had dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland, which had ruled in favor of Hassum & Levitt Pty Ltd and another respondent. Dickson’s application to the High Court was for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision. The legal issues before the High Court were whether the application raised any appropriate question of law or principle warranting consideration and whether there was sufficient reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment.

The High Court examined the application and found that it did not present a significant question of law or principle that required the Court's intervention. The Court concluded that the application was unlikely to succeed and that granting the extension of time would be futile. The reasoning hinged on the absence of any compelling legal issue that could justify a review of the Court of Appeal's decision. The High Court noted that the Court of Appeal had carefully considered the matter, and there was no apparent error or misapplication of law that would warrant a further appeal.

Given the above, the High Court determined that the application for an extension of time should be refused. The decision underscored the importance of identifying substantial legal issues that could potentially alter the outcome of the case. Since the application did not meet these criteria, the Court found no basis to grant the requested extension. The refusal of special leave to appeal was based on the Court's assessment that there was insufficient merit in the application to warrant further proceedings.

The final orders of the Court were that special leave to appeal was refused, and the application for an extension of time was dismissed. This decision reaffirmed the principles governing the grant of special leave to appeal, emphasizing the need for a compelling reason to overturn a decision of a lower court.

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.