Mailey & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

MAILEY & ORS

v

SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL

[2018] HCASL 85
S22/2018

  1. This application for special leave to appeal from the decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales (Macfarlan and Meagher JJA and Preston CJ of the Land and Environment Court) requires an extension of time.  An extension of time would be futile.  An appeal would not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave to appeal.  The application should be dismissed.

  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 with costs.

M.M. Gordon
17 April 2018
J.J. Edelman
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mailey & Ors v Sutherland Shire Council 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
[2018] HCASL 85
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicants in this case, Mailey and others, sought special leave to appeal a decision of the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of New South Wales. The original matter involved a dispute between the applicants and the Sutherland Shire Council regarding an environmental matter. The Court of Appeal had previously dismissed an appeal from a decision of the Land and Environment Court, which had ruled in favour of the Sutherland Shire Council. The applicants now sought to appeal this decision to the High Court.

The central legal issue before the court was whether the applicants should be granted an extension of time to lodge their application for special leave to appeal. The applicants argued that they should be granted an extension, as they had not been aware of the Court of Appeal's decision until after the usual time limit for lodging such an application had expired. The Sutherland Shire Council opposed the application on the grounds that an extension would be futile and that the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant the grant of special leave.

In dismissing the application, the court found that an extension of time would not be appropriate in the circumstances. The court held that the applicants had not demonstrated any exceptional circumstances that would justify an extension, and that the application was made well beyond the usual time limit. The court also found that the appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success, as the applicants had not identified any errors of law in the Court of Appeal's decision that would warrant further review by the High Court. Accordingly, the application for special leave to appeal was dismissed.

The court further directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs, in accordance with rule 41.08.1 of the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The costs were to be paid by the applicants, and the order was signed and sealed by the Registrar on 17 April 2018.

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.