Lietzau v Lietzau

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

LIETZAU

v

LIETZAU

[2021] HCASL 109
P3/2021

  1. The applicant requires an extension of time in which to seek leave to appeal from a decision of the Family Court of Australia (Strickland J) dismissing an application for leave to re‑open an earlier decision to dismiss an application for leave to appeal from a decision of the Family Court (Thackray J). 

  2. There is no point in granting an extension of time.  The applicant identifies no question of principle which it would be in the interests of justice for this Court to consider.  There is no reason to doubt the decision of Strickland J.  Accordingly, special leave should be refused.

  3. 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.

M.M. Gordon S.H.P. Steward
17 June 2021
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Lietzau v Lietzau 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
[2021] HCASL 109
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Lietzau v Lietzau, the applicant sought an extension of time to appeal a decision of the Family Court of Australia. The decision in question was a dismissal by Strickland J of an application to reopen an earlier decision by Thackray J, which had dismissed an application for leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of South Australia was asked to grant the applicant special leave to appeal to the High Court. The central legal issue was whether an extension of time should be granted for the applicant to seek leave to appeal the Family Court decision.

The court considered whether there was a point in granting an extension of time and whether any question of principle would be in the interests of justice. The applicant did not identify any such question. Furthermore, there was no reason to doubt the decision of Strickland J. The court found that there was no basis to grant the application for an extension of time. It was not in the interests of justice to allow the appeal, as the applicant had not demonstrated any grounds warranting special leave.

Consequently, the Supreme Court of South Australia refused special leave. The court's reasoning was that the applicant had not identified a question of principle that would benefit from further consideration. Additionally, the court found no reason to doubt the correctness of the Family Court's decision. As a result, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed, and the Registrar was directed to draw up an order to that effect. This decision underscores the stringent requirements for obtaining extensions of time in appeals and the importance of identifying clear legal grounds for appeal.

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.