Huggins v The State of South Australia (No 4)
[2005] SASC 328
•31 August 2005
SUPREME COURT OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA
(Full Court: Leave to Appeal in Private)
HUGGINS v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (No 4)
Judgment of The Full Court
(The Honourable Chief Justice Doyle, The Honourable Justice Bleby and The Honourable Justice Gray)
31 August 2005
APPEAL AND NEW TRIAL - APPEAL - PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE - SOUTH AUSTRALIA - EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPEAL
An application to the Full Court for leave to appeal against an order of this Court refusing an extension of time - application made out of time - no explanation for the delay - application refused.
Supreme Court Rules R 94.01, referred to.
Huggins v The State of South Australia [2004] SASC 16; Huggins v The State of South Australia (No 2) [2005] SASC 169; Huggins v The State of South Australia (No 3) [2005] SASC 225, considered.
HUGGINS v THE STATE OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA (No 4)
[2005] SASC 328Full Court: Doyle CJ, Bleby and Gray JJ
THE COURT: Mr Huggins has applied to the Full Court for leave to appeal against an order by a single Judge refusing to extend the time within which he might institute an appeal.
In January 2004 a Judge of this Court found in favour of Mr Huggins in an action against The State of South Australia, and ordered that judgment be entered in his favour for $6,000: Huggins v The State of South Australia [2004] SASC 16. Mr Huggins wanted to appeal against that decision. Presumably he sought a better result. He had 14 days within which to do so.
The appeal was not instituted within time. Some of the delay may have been due to Mr Huggins seeking a waiver of the fee to be paid on the institution of an appeal. In any event, the time for appeal passed.
A notice of appeal was filed on 13 April 2004. It was out of time.
Again there was a period of inaction.
In May 2005 a Judge of this Court took the view that the appeal had lapsed, because it had not been set down within the required time. The Judge dismissed an application for an extension of time within which to set down the appeal. The Judge also refused to extend the time for the institution of the appeal: Huggins v The State of South Australia (No 2) [2005] SASC 169.
Those orders were made on 13 May 2005.
Mr Huggins then applied for leave to appeal against the refusal of an extension of time. On 17 June 2005 a Judge refused that application: Huggins v The State of South Australia (No 3) [2005] SASC 225.
Now Mr Huggins makes application to the Full Court for leave to appeal against the refusal of an extension of time.
The application is out of time. By Rule 94.01 it had to be made within 14 days from the refusal of the extension of time, that is within 14 days of 13 May 2005.
Mr Huggins has not provided any explanation for the delay.
Quite apart from that, the time within which the appeal can be instituted will be extended only if the applicant can show that the appeal has some arguable prospect of success, or if it is otherwise in the interests of justice to extend the time. As well, as I have already said, an explanation for the delay is required.
The written argument submitted by Mr Huggins in support of his application does not identify any basis upon which the original decision of 22 January 2004 might be said to be wrong. Nor does it identify any basis upon which the refusal of an extension of time within which to appeal might be said to be wrong. There is nothing in the material submitted by Mr Huggins that advances his cause in any way.
Accordingly, there being no satisfactory explanation for the delay, but more importantly there being no arguable ground of appeal identified, the Court is of the view that the application for leave to appeal against the order refusing to extend time within which to institute an appeal, should be refused.
0
3
1