Goldsmith v Stinson

GOLDSMITH
v
STINSON
[2023] HCASL 112
B21/2023

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction (McClelland DCJ, Riethmuller and Strum JJ), refusing leave to appeal from orders made on 22 July 2022 by a judge of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) (Carew J).
The application does not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal and it would not otherwise be in the interests of the administration of justice to grant special leave.
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.

S.J. Gageler J.S. Gleeson

10 August 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Goldsmith v Stinson, the applicant, Goldsmith, sought special leave to appeal a decision made by the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction. The dispute originated from orders made by a judge of the same court on 22 July 2022, which were subsequently upheld by the Appellate Jurisdiction on a previous appeal. Goldsmith’s application for special leave was aimed at challenging the Appellate Jurisdiction’s decision to refuse leave to appeal from the original orders.

The legal issues that the court was required to decide included whether the application for special leave had sufficient prospects of success and whether granting special leave would be in the interests of the administration of justice. The court had to assess the merits of the case and consider whether the appeal would provide a significant advancement in the law or address an important legal question that warranted further consideration by a higher court.

The court determined that the application did not possess sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Additionally, the court found that it would not be in the interests of the administration of justice to grant special leave. The reasoning provided by the court was based on the merits of the case and the lack of significant advancement in the law that would result from granting special leave. The court concluded that the application should be dismissed, and as such, directed the Registrar to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

In conclusion, the court dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and ordered that costs be paid by the applicant. The decision underscores the stringent criteria that must be met for an application for special leave to be successful, particularly in cases where the appeal does not offer substantial legal benefits or advancements.

Continue reading Goldsmith v Stinson

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established