Groom v Police

GROOM
v
POLICE
[2025] HCADISP 17
A25/2024

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a judgment of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Kourakis CJ, Nicholson and Hinton JJ), which dismissed an application for permission to appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia (Vanstone J).
The application for special leave to appeal does not raise a question of law of public importance and any appeal would have no prospects of success. It is not in the interests of the administration of justice, either generally or in this case, for special leave to appeal to be granted. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gordon J
Beech-Jones J
6 March 2025

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The matter of Groom v Police involves an application by the applicant for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia, which dismissed an application for permission to appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court of South Australia. The Full Court's decision was handed down on 25 March 2024 and the applicant's application for special leave to appeal was lodged on 21 April 2024. The applicant seeks an extension of time to lodge the application for special leave to appeal within the time prescribed by the relevant rules.

The legal issues before the court were whether the application for special leave to appeal raised a question of law of public importance, whether the appeal had any prospects of success, and whether it was in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension of time sought by the applicant. The court considered the relevant principles and authorities on special leave to appeal and the circumstances of the case, including the fact that the applicant had failed to lodge the application for special leave to appeal within the prescribed time.

The court held that the application for special leave to appeal did not raise a question of law of public importance and any appeal would have no prospects of success. The court also found that it was not in the interests of the administration of justice to grant the extension of time sought by the applicant, as it would be futile to do so. The court noted that the applicant had failed to provide any satisfactory explanation for the delay in lodging the application for special leave to appeal and that the Full Court's decision was well reasoned and supported by the evidence. The court therefore refused the application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal.

The final orders of the court were that special leave to appeal be refused and that the applicant pay the respondent's costs of the application.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established