Giurina v McIlroy & Anor

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

GIURINA

v

MCILROY & ANOR

[2024] HCASL 258
M63/2024

  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 Victoria (Niall and Lyons JJA), which dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Tsalamandris J).

  2. The application does not raise any appropriate question of law or principle for this Court to consider and there is no reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment. It would therefore be futile to grant an extension of time.

  3. Special leave to appeal is refused.

    Gleeson J
    Beech-Jones J

    10 October 2024

CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Giurina v McIlroy & 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 258
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Giurina v McIlroy, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which in turn dismissed an application for leave to appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria. The applicant's appeal sought to challenge the decision of the Court of Appeal, which had dismissed an application for leave to appeal from the initial judgment. This case involves a complex interplay of appellate jurisdiction and the rules governing applications for leave to appeal.

The legal issues before the Court were whether the application for an extension of time raised any appropriate question of law or principle that warranted the grant of special leave to appeal, and whether there was any reason to doubt the correctness of the Court of Appeal's judgment. The Court needed to assess the merits of the applicant's claim to an extension of time and determine whether such an extension would be futile. The Court had to consider the procedural aspects of the case, including the standards for granting special leave to appeal.

The Court found that the application did not raise any appropriate question of law or principle for consideration by the Court. The reasoning of the Court of Appeal was found to be correct and there were no grounds to doubt its judgment. The Court concluded that granting an extension of time would be futile as it would not alter the outcome of the case. Gleeson and Beech-Jones JJ determined that the appeal was without merit and refused the application for special leave to appeal.

In conclusion, the Court refused the application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal. The Court held that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for special leave and that the judgment of the Court of Appeal was correct. The refusal of special leave to appeal meant that the initial decision of the Court of Appeal remained undisturbed.

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.