Manny v Shiels

The Supreme Court of the Australian Capital Territory considered an application for leave to appeal out of time brought by Jeff Manny and Jeff Manny Pty Ltd (the applicants) against Peter and Warwick Shiels (the respondents). The application sought to appeal a decision of the Supreme Court delivered on 11 June 2010, which concerned defamation proceedings arising from a physical altercation at a karate school and subsequent defamatory statements made by Mr. Manny. The application was filed approximately 12 years after the original judgment.

The central legal issues before the Court were whether to grant leave to appeal out of time, given the significant delay and the fact that the decision under appeal had already been the subject of a prior appeal to the ACT Court of Appeal. The Court also considered the applicants' submissions that the original judgment constituted a grave miscarriage of justice and that Mr. Manny's personal circumstances prevented him from pursuing an appeal earlier. The Court also had to address the issue of service of the application on the respondents, one of whom had died and the other whose whereabouts were unknown.

The Court reasoned that the original judgment of Gray J had been merged with the subsequent judgment of the ACT Court of Appeal in *Shiels v Manny* [2012] ACTCA 22, which had already determined the substantive appeal. Therefore, an appeal from the judgment of Gray J to the Supreme Court would be incompetent. Furthermore, even if the appeal were competent, the Court found that the applicants had failed to provide compelling justification for the extensive delay. Mr. Manny's submissions regarding a miscarriage of justice were largely unsupported assertions, and no explanation was offered for why an appeal had not been sought much earlier. The Court also noted that Mr. Manny had already pursued an appeal to the Court of Appeal, where he had the opportunity to raise his concerns.

Consequently, the Court dismissed the application for leave to appeal out of time. The Court ordered that the first applicant, Jeff Manny, pay the respondents' costs, noting that the amount payable would likely be nominal given the circumstances.