Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors

Case [2023] HCASL 133

LUCK
V
BUNNINGS GROUP LIMITED & ORS
[2023] HCASL 133
M27/2023

  1. The applicant seeks extensions of time within which to apply for leave to appeal from decisions of a single Justice of this Court (Gleeson J) made on 22 December 2021 and 19 April 2022, refusing her application for an urgent directions hearing, dismissing her amended application for directions and summarily dismissing proceeding M77/2021.

  2. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of Gleeson J's decisions. Accordingly, it would be futile to grant the extensions of time sought.

  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.

S.J. Gageler J.M. Jagot
14 September 2023

Continue reading Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors

Sign in free to access the full text

Details
AGLC
Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors [2023] HCASL 133
Case
[2023] HCASL 133
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In Luck v Bunnings Group Limited & Ors, the applicant sought extensions of time to apply for leave to appeal from decisions made by Gleeson J. The decisions in question included the refusal of an application for an urgent directions hearing, the dismissal of an amended application for directions, and the summary dismissal of proceeding M77/2021. Gleeson J had ruled against the applicant on 22 December 2021 and 19 April 2022. The applicant was requesting extensions of time to appeal these decisions.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant should be granted extensions of time to appeal the decisions of Gleeson J and if such an appeal would be futile. The court needed to determine if there was any reason to doubt the correctness of Gleeson J's decisions and if granting the extensions would be warranted.

The court found no reason to doubt the correctness of Gleeson J's decisions. Given that the decisions appeared to be correct, the court considered that granting the extensions of time sought by the applicant would be futile. Therefore, the court dismissed the application for extensions of time. Pursuant to rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth), the Registrar was directed to draw up, sign, and seal an order dismissing the application. The justices who heard the case were S.J. Gageler and J.M. Jagot, and the decision was made on 14 September 2023.

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.