Jess & Ors v Jess

JESS & ORS
v
JESS & ORS
[2022] HCASL 24
M66/2021

An extension of time is necessary to enable this application for special leave to appeal to proceed. The appeal proposed by the application would not turn on an issue of principle. In addition, the interests of the administration of justice do not require this Court's re‑examination of the concurrent findings of fact by the courts below. The application should be refused. That being so, it would be futile to grant the required extension of time.
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.

P.A. Keane J.S. Gleeson

17 February 2022

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Jess & Ors v Jess, the applicants sought an extension of time for the purpose of lodging a special leave to appeal in the High Court. The respondents opposed the application. The legal dispute centred on whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to file their application, and whether the proposed appeal would turn on an issue of principle or require the court's re-examination of concurrent findings of fact made by lower courts. The High Court was required to decide whether the applicants' application for an extension of time should be granted, and if the appeal would involve issues of principle or necessitate a re-examination of the facts.

The High Court examined the merits of the proposed appeal, and determined that it did not turn on an issue of principle. The court also concluded that the administration of justice did not require it to re-examine the findings of fact made by the lower courts. The court considered that the application for an extension of time was essentially futile, given that the appeal would not involve issues of principle or require a re-examination of the facts. The court therefore found that the application for an extension of time should be refused.

The High Court dismissed the application for an extension of time, and ordered the applicants to pay costs. The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve issues of principle or require a re-examination of the facts, and that it would be futile to grant the required extension of time. The court held that the application should be refused, and that the applicants should pay costs.

The final orders of the court were that the application for an extension of time was dismissed with costs. The court found that the proposed appeal did not involve issues of principle or require a re-examination of the facts, and that it would be futile to grant the required extension of time. The applicants were ordered to pay costs to the respondents.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established