Kilkenny v Kilkenny

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

KILKENNY

v

KILKENNY & ORS

[2019] HCASL 67
P66/2018

  1. The applicant requires a short extension of time to enable this application for special leave to appeal to proceed.  The application does not raise a question of legal principle that is suitable for the grant of special leave.  Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extension of time that is sought.  Special leave to appeal should be refused.

  2. 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.

V.M. Bell
20 March 2019
S.J. Gageler
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Kilkenny v Kilkenny and more:

  • Read every judgment in full
  • Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
  • See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
  • Download judgments as PDF or Word
Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details
Case
[2019] HCASL 67
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Kilkenny v Kilkenny & Ors is a case before the High Court of Australia. The applicant in the case is seeking an extension of time to proceed with an application for special leave to appeal. The case involves a dispute that has not been explicitly detailed in the summary provided. However, the central issue before the court was whether the applicant should be granted a short extension of time to enable the application for special leave to appeal to proceed. Additionally, the court had to determine if the application raised a question of legal principle that would justify the grant of special leave.

The High Court considered the nature of the applicant's request and assessed whether the extension of time sought would lead to a meaningful outcome. The court examined whether the proposed appeal had the potential to address a significant legal issue. In this case, the court determined that the application did not raise a question of legal principle that warranted special leave. Therefore, the court concluded that granting the extension of time would be futile. Consequently, the application for special leave to appeal was refused.

The reasoning of the High Court was that the application did not meet the threshold for a meaningful appeal, as it did not present a suitable legal question. The court directed the Registrar to prepare an order dismissing the application for special leave to appeal. This decision was based on the premise that any extension of time would not result in a successful appeal due to the lack of a significant legal issue. The final order dismissed the application and indicated that the appeal would not proceed further.

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.