IN THE MATTER OF AN APPLICATION BY MS. NEWETT FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[2024] HCASL 128
S35/2024
The applicant seeks leave to appeal from a decision of a single Justice of this Court (Gleeson J) refusing leave to file an application to reopen an application for special leave to appeal from a decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia (Division 1) Appellate Jurisdiction, which was dismissed by this Court (Gordon and Steward JJ) (Ms. Newett v Mr. Newett& Ors [2023] HCASL 186). By way of subsequent application filed on 11 April 2024, the relief sought also includes a grant of leave for "the inclusion of affidavits of several supporting witnesses from like-cases" and an order that such affidavits be adduced into evidence in any appeal. The applicant was invited to file the affidavits she would seek to put before the Court on appeal by Friday 3 May 2024, however, none were filed, nor was any communication received from the applicant in response to the invitation.
For leave to appeal to be granted, it is necessary for the applicant to establish that the decision from which leave to appeal is sought is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration and, if so established, that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused, supposing the decision to be wrong. Nothing in the applicant's application for leave to appeal raises any, let alone sufficient, reasons to doubt the correctness of the decision of Gleeson J. Accordingly, there is no basis for a grant of leave to appeal. The applicant has also failed to demonstrate any bases justifying the grant of the relief sought in the application filed on 11 April 2024.
The interlocutory application filed on 11 April 2024 is refused and leave to appeal is refused.
Edelman J
Jagot J9 May 2024
- AGLC
- In the Matter Of An Application BY Ms. Newett for Leave To Appeal [2024] HCASL 128
- Case
- [2024] HCASL 128
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The legal issues at hand involved determining whether sufficient doubt existed regarding Gleeson J's decision to warrant reconsideration and whether a substantial injustice would result if leave to appeal were denied. The court examined Ms. Newett's application to determine if it provided sufficient reasons to doubt Gleeson J's decision. Furthermore, the court assessed whether Ms. Newett had demonstrated any grounds justifying the inclusion of additional affidavits as requested in her subsequent application. The court found that Ms. Newett's application did not provide any reasons to doubt the correctness of Gleeson J's decision and failed to demonstrate any basis for including the additional affidavits.
The court found that Ms. Newett's application for leave to appeal did not raise sufficient reasons to doubt the correctness of Gleeson J's decision. Consequently, there was no basis for granting leave to appeal. Additionally, the court concluded that Ms. Newett had not demonstrated any grounds justifying the inclusion of the additional affidavits as requested in her subsequent application. As a result, the interlocutory application filed on 11 April 2024 was refused, and leave to appeal was denied. The decision emphasized the need for Ms. Newett to establish sufficient doubt and potential substantial injustice to warrant reconsideration by the court.
Orders
Orders of the court
Full text does not contain this section.
Background
Background to the litigation
Full text does not contain this section.
Evidence
Evidence Before The Court
Full text does not contain this section.
Decision
Reasons for decision
Full text does not contain this section.
Ratio Decidendi
Legal Principle Established
Full text does not contain this section.