Goldsmith & Anor v AMP Life Ltd

GOLDSMITH & ANOR
v
AMP LIFE LTD
[2025] HCADISP 50
B68/2024

The applicants require an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from part of a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Mullins P, Bond and Dalton JJA). The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of Queensland (Crowley J) which permanently stayed the applicants' claim.
The proposed appeal does not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Nor does it raise any issues of law of general application or public importance. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.
Gageler CJ
Gordon J
Edelman J
Steward J
Gleeson J
Jagot J
Beech-Jones J
6 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The High Court of Australia was asked to consider an application for an extension of time to appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Queensland. The applicants sought to appeal from a decision that permanently stayed their claim. The applicants, Goldsmith and Anor, were seeking to challenge a permanent stay of their proceedings which had been granted by the Supreme Court of Queensland. The Court of Appeal subsequently dismissed the appeal, leading the applicants to seek special leave to appeal to the High Court.

The legal issues before the court included whether the appeal had sufficient prospects of success, whether the appeal raised any issues of law of general application or public importance, and whether the proposed appeal would be futile. The applicants argued that the Court of Appeal erred in dismissing the appeal and that the appeal had significant prospects of success. They also submitted that the appeal raised important issues of law.

The court, however, found that the proposed appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success. The High Court determined that the appeal did not raise any issues of law of general application or public importance, and therefore, granting the extension of time sought would be futile. The court concluded that there was no merit in the application for an extension of time to appeal. Accordingly, the application was dismissed with costs.

The final orders of the court were that special leave to appeal was refused and that the applicants were to pay the costs of the application.

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