Lieschke v Lieschke & Ors

Case [2024] HCASL 66


LIESCHKE

v

LIESCHKE & ORS

[2024] HCASL 66
S147/2023

  1. The applicant applies for an extension of time in which to seek special leave to appeal from the judgment of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Leeming, Payne and Beech-Jones JJA) given on 13 October 2023.[1] The application involves no question of law and is not attended by sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant an extension of time.

  2. Special leave to appeal is refused with costs.

    Gageler CJ

    Gordon J

    Edelman J

    Steward J

    Gleeson J

    Jagot J

    7 March 2024


Details
AGLC
Lieschke v Lieschke & Ors [2024] HCASL 66
Case
[2024] HCASL 66
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of Lieschke v Lieschke & Ors, the applicant sought an extension of time to apply for special leave to appeal from a judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The case involves a dispute between the parties, with the specifics of the underlying matter not detailed in the High Court's decision. The application was made under the High Court’s appellate jurisdiction, specifically seeking an extension to appeal against the decision dated 13 October 2023.

The legal issues central to the High Court’s consideration were whether the application for an extension of time should be granted, and if the case presented a sufficient doubt to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal. The High Court noted that the application did not involve any question of law of general public importance and was not attended by sufficient doubt to justify the grant of special leave to appeal.

The High Court reasoned that the application for an extension of time would be futile if granted, given the absence of a substantial question of law or doubt regarding the correctness of the Court of Appeal’s decision. The Court observed that the applicant had not demonstrated any special circumstances warranting an extension. As a result, the application for special leave to appeal was refused, with the Court ordering the applicant to pay the costs of the application.

In summary, the High Court denied the applicant's request for an extension of time to seek special leave to appeal, concluding that such an extension would be futile given the lack of a substantial question of law or sufficient doubt regarding the appeal decision. The Court also ordered the applicant to pay the costs associated with the application.

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.