Flageul v Wedrive Pty Ltd T/A Wedrive

FLAGEUL
v
WEDRIVE PTY LTD T/A WEDRIVE & ORS
[2021] HCASL 213
M48/2021

The application for special leave to appeal requires an extension of time in order to proceed. The proposed grounds of appeal from the decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Flick, Murphy and O'Callaghan JJ) do not identify a question of law sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and it would not be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of the case to grant leave. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought. The application should be dismissed.
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 with costs.

M.M. Gordon J.J. Edelman

4 November 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Flageul v Wedrive Pty Ltd T/A Wedrive concerns an application for special leave to appeal a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The applicant, Flageul, seeks to appeal a decision that was made in relation to a dispute with Wedrive Pty Ltd. The Federal Court had previously heard and dismissed the case, and the applicant is now seeking to take the matter further to the High Court.

The primary legal issue before the court was whether the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The court needed to determine if the grounds identified a question of law that was significant enough to merit consideration by the High Court, and whether it would be in the interests of justice to grant leave. Additionally, the court had to consider whether granting an extension of time for the application would be futile.

The court held that the proposed grounds of appeal did not identify a question of law sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave. The court found that the issues raised did not meet the threshold required for special leave, and that granting leave would not be in the interests of justice generally or in the particular circumstances of the case. Consequently, the court concluded that granting the extension of time sought by the applicant would be futile. As a result, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court also ordered that the Registrar should prepare, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. The costs were to be borne by the applicant, Flageul. This order reflects the court's decision that the application was not meritorious and should not proceed further.

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