Jemmott v Krejci & Ors

JEMMOTT
v
KREJCI & ORS
[2024] HCASL 7[1]
S102/2023
[1] Amended on 22 February 2024 pursuant to r 3.01.2 of the High Court Rules 2004 to remove reference to the applicant requiring an extension of time.

The applicant seeks special leave to appeal from orders of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Gleeson JA, Basten AJA) refusing an extension of time for leave to appeal from decisions of single judges of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Black and Ierace JJ)[2] and dismissing the appeals.[3] The Court of Appeal also dismissed an amended notice of motion seeking a multiplicity of relief concerning the winding up of ENA Development Pty Ltd.
[2] In the matter of ENA Development Pty Ltd (in liq) [2022] NSWSC 1478; In the matter of ENA Development Pty Ltd (in liq) (Costs) [2023] NSWSC 162.
[3] Sebie v Krejci [2023] NSWCA 187.
The application does not raise any issue of public importance and otherwise does not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Special leave to appeal is refused.
Gleeson J
Beech-Jones J
8 February 2024

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Jemmott sought special leave to appeal from decisions of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales, which had refused an extension of time for leave to appeal from decisions of single judges of the Supreme Court and dismissed the appeals. The Court of Appeal had also dismissed an amended notice of motion concerning the winding up of ENA Development Pty Ltd. The legal issues before the court were whether the application for special leave to appeal raised any issue of public importance and whether it had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave.

The court found that the application did not raise any issue of public importance and otherwise did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. Special leave to appeal was refused. The Court of Appeal had concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for extending the time limit for filing the notice of appeal, and that the application for special leave to appeal was an attempt to relitigate the merits of the underlying proceedings. The Court of Appeal had also found that the amended notice of motion was not an appropriate vehicle for seeking relief concerning the winding up of ENA Development Pty Ltd.

The court agreed with the Court of Appeal's reasoning and outcome. The applicant had not demonstrated any grounds for extending the time limit for filing the notice of appeal, and the application for special leave to appeal was an attempt to relitigate the merits of the underlying proceedings. The amended notice of motion was not an appropriate vehicle for seeking relief concerning the winding up of ENA Development Pty Ltd. The application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Court of Appeal's orders were upheld.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established