Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd v Nicoletti

HARVARD NOMINEES PTY LTD
v
NICOLETTI
[2023] HCASL 57
P33/2022

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia (Banks-Smith, Colvin and O'Sullivan JJ) unanimously dismissing an appeal from a decision of the Federal Court of Australia (Jackson J).
The applicant has not identified a question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Further, the application has insufficient prospects of success. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time sought. Special leave should be refused.
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.

J.J. Edelman S.H.P. Steward

13 April 2023

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Harvard Nominees Pty Ltd sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal against a decision of the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia. The initial appeal was dismissed by the Full Court, which was a unanimous decision of Banks-Smith, Colvin, and O'Sullivan JJ. The applicant, Harvard Nominees, sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The court was required to determine whether the applicant had identified a question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The court was also required to consider whether the application had sufficient prospects of success, and whether it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought.

The court found that the applicant had not identified a question of principle of general importance sufficient to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The court also found that the application had insufficient prospects of success and that it would be futile to grant the extension of time sought. Therefore, the court refused the application for an extension of time and dismissed the application with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs. The court found that the application was not sufficiently meritorious to warrant an extension of time and that the costs should be awarded against the applicant.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established