Einav Kedem v Johnsons Lawyers

EINAV KEDEM
v
JOHNSONS LAWYERS
[2014] HCASL 117
A6/2014

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal against orders of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (North, Barker and Katzmann JJ). By those orders, the Full Court unanimously dismissed the applicant's appeal against orders of a single judge of the Federal Court (Mansfield J). Mansfield J dismissed the applicant's claim for an extension of time within which to bring proceedings against the respondent, his former solicitors, alleging negligence, breach of contract and misleading and deceptive conduct. In noting that the relevant causes of action accrued some years ago, Mansfield J found that all claims were statute barred, and that no basis had been made out to support the extension of time sought. The Full Court also dismissed an argument, raised by the applicant for the first time on appeal, that he was labouring under a disability for the purposes of s 45 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA).
As the applicant does not have legal representation, the application falls to be dealt with under r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.
We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached by the Full Court. No question of principle would arise for determination if special leave to appeal were granted. An appeal to this Court would enjoy insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.
Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

K.M. Hayne
6 August 2014
S.M. Crennan

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Einav Kedem versus Johnsons Lawyers, the applicant, Einav Kedem, sought special leave to appeal against orders made by the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The Full Court had dismissed the applicant's appeal against an earlier decision of a single judge, Mansfield J, who had dismissed the applicant's claim for an extension of time to bring proceedings against Johnsons Lawyers, the applicant's former solicitors. The applicant had alleged negligence, breach of contract, and misleading and deceptive conduct by the solicitors. Mansfield J had found that the relevant causes of action had accrued some years ago, and that all claims were statute barred, with no basis for extending the time limit. The Full Court also dismissed the applicant's argument that he was labouring under a disability for the purposes of section 45 of the Limitation of Actions Act 1936 (SA), an argument that was raised for the first time on appeal.

The legal issues that the court had to decide included whether the Full Court's decision was correct, whether the Full Court's decision would give rise to a question of principle, and whether the applicant's appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court concluded that there was no reason to doubt the correctness of the Full Court's conclusions, that no question of principle would arise if special leave were granted, and that the applicant's appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

The court's reasoning was that the Full Court had considered the relevant law and evidence and had reached its conclusions based on the evidence presented. The court found no error in the Full Court's decision and concluded that the applicant's appeal had insufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.

This case highlights the importance of timely action in bringing claims and the limitations on extending time limits in legal proceedings. It also underscores the importance of raising arguments at the earliest opportunity and the difficulties of raising new arguments on appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established