Glendining & Anor v SF Cosentino Pty Ltd

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

GLENDINING & ANOR

v

SF COSENTINO PTY LTD

[2021] HCASL 94
M14/2021

  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 not turn upon any issue of principle of general importance; and, in addition, the prospects of success are not such as to warrant the grant of special leave. The application should be refused. That being so, it would be futile to grant an extension of time to enable the application to proceed.

  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
18 May 2021
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Glendining & Anor v SF Cosentino Pty Ltd 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 94
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the High Court of Australia, the case of Glendining and Another v SF Cosentino Pty Ltd was heard and decided on 18 May 2021. The parties involved were Glendining and another, who were the applicants, and SF Cosentino Pty Ltd, the respondent. The nature of the dispute was related to an application for special leave to appeal, which the applicants sought to extend the time for filing. The primary focus was on whether the application for special leave to appeal should be granted and if an extension of time was necessary to enable the application to proceed.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the appeal foreshadowed by the application would turn upon any issue of principle of general importance and whether the prospects of success for the appeal were sufficient to warrant the grant of special leave. Additionally, the court had to consider whether it would be futile to grant an extension of time for the application to proceed.

In reaching its decision, the court found that the appeal would not turn upon any issue of principle of general importance, and the prospects of success were not such as to warrant the grant of special leave. The court concluded that the application should be refused and that it would be futile to grant an extension of time to enable the application to proceed. Pursuant to Rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application.

No further orders were made beyond the dismissal of the application. The applicants were denied special leave to appeal, and the extension of time application was refused. The court's reasoning focused on the lack of general importance of the issues and the insufficient prospects of success, leading to the conclusion that the application was futile and should not proceed.

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.