MAILEY & ORS
v
SUTHERLAND SHIRE COUNCIL
[2018] HCASL 85
S22/2018
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.
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 2018J.J. Edelman
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
One click creates your free account or signs you in.
By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.
- Case
- [2018] HCASL 85
- Decision Date
CaseChat Overview and Summary
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.