Dunstan v Higham

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

DUNSTAN

v

HIGHAM & ORS

[2021] HCASL 43
C14/2020

  1. An extension of time is necessary to enable this application for special leave to appeal to proceed. The appeal foreshadowed by the application would concern a matter of practice and procedure relating to costs; no question of principle of sufficient public importance to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal would arise. The interests of the proper administration of justice are not engaged. The application should be refused. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time required by the applicant.

  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.

P.A. Keane J.J. Edelman
11 March 2021
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Dunstan v Higham 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
[2021] HCASL 43
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Dunstan v Higham was a case heard by the High Court of Australia. The appellant, Dunstan, sought special leave to appeal a decision made by the South Australian Supreme Court in a case involving procedural matters relating to costs. The respondents, Higham and others, opposed the application for special leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the High Court were whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted and if the extension of time requested by the appellant was necessary. The court needed to determine whether the matter raised a question of principle of sufficient public importance to warrant the grant of special leave to appeal.

The High Court found that the application for special leave to appeal should be refused as it did not involve a matter of principle of sufficient public importance. The court concluded that the interests of the proper administration of justice were not engaged, and it would be futile to grant the extension of time required by the appellant. Consequently, the court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

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.