Fidge v Medical Board of Australia

FIDGE
v
MEDICAL BOARD OF AUSTRALIA
[2024] HCASL 74
M96/2023

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (McLeish, Niall and Taylor JJA) which refused an application for leave to appeal from orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria (Cavanough J) which, in turn, had granted the applicant leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal on a question of law under s 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 (Vic) in relation to an interlocutory decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal made on 24 November 2021 which ceased to have any practical significance and in respect of which the proposed questions of law may not arise.
The application has no prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused.

Gordon J
Steward J

5 April 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which dismissed an application for leave to appeal from orders made by the Supreme Court of Victoria. The Supreme Court had previously granted the applicant leave to appeal but dismissed the appeal on a question of law under section 148 of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal Act 1998 in relation to an interlocutory decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal. The interlocutory decision had ceased to have any practical significance, and the proposed questions of law may not arise. The application for an extension of time was dismissed due to its lack of prospects of success.

The court had to decide whether the application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal was justified. The key legal issue was whether the interlocutory decision of the Victorian Civil and Administrative Tribunal still held practical significance or if the proposed questions of law could still arise. Additionally, the court needed to consider whether the application had any prospects of success and whether granting an extension of time would be futile.

The court held that the interlocutory decision had ceased to have practical significance, and the proposed questions of law were unlikely to arise. The court also found that the application had no prospects of success and that granting the extension of time sought would be futile. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

No further orders were made by the court. The dismissal of the application for special leave to appeal was upheld, and the applicant's request for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal was refused.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established