Hind v Ronsel Investments Pty Ltd

HIND
v
RONSEL INVESTMENTS PTY LTD
[2024] HCASL 310
M77/2024

The applicant requires an extension of time within which to seek special leave to appeal from the whole of the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Beach and Lyons JJA), refusing leave to appeal from the judgment of the Supreme Court of Victoria (Niall JA), which in turn refused an extension of time to appeal the orders made by Daly AsJ on 23 July 2020 and 6 October 2021, summarily dismissing an action for negligence against the applicant's former solicitor, and dismissing a further action for negligence against the applicant's former solicitor for want of prosecution.
The applicant's proposed grounds of appeal have no prospects of success and do not raise any questions of general principle. It would therefore be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.
Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gordon J
Steward J
5 December 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant in this case, Hind, sought an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal against the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Victoria, which had dismissed an application to extend time to appeal from the Supreme Court of Victoria's judgment. This judgment had, in turn, dismissed Hind's action for negligence against her former solicitor and a subsequent action for want of prosecution. The primary focus of the case was the assessment of the merits and prospects of success of the proposed grounds of appeal by Hind. The application was made to Gordon JSteward J.

The central legal issue that the court had to address was whether the proposed grounds of appeal had any prospects of success and whether they raised any questions of general principle. This assessment was crucial in determining whether the application for an extension of time to seek special leave should be granted. The court had to evaluate the merits of the arguments put forward by Hind and determine whether the proposed grounds of appeal were sufficiently compelling to warrant an extension of time.

The court held that the proposed grounds of appeal did not have any prospects of success and did not raise any questions of general principle. The reasoning behind this decision was that the applicant's proposed grounds of appeal were considered futile and unlikely to succeed. Additionally, the court noted that there was no indication that the proposed grounds of appeal would contribute to the development of the law in any significant way. Consequently, the application for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal was refused.

Given the court's determination that the proposed grounds of appeal were futile, the final orders were that special leave to appeal was refused. This outcome reflects the court's conclusion that the application did not meet the necessary criteria for an extension of time to seek special leave.

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