Martin v Hillier

In the matter of Martin v Hillier, the application for leave to appeal an interlocutory decision regarding privilege against self-incrimination was dismissed by the court. The applicant argued that the decision at first instance was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant reconsideration by the Full Court and that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The primary issue before the court was whether the applicant had established a decision at first instance that was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant it being considered by the Full Court. The court found that the applicant had not established that the decision at first instance was attended with sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court. The court considered the material provided to Anderson J and to the Court on this application, and found that production of the Xero database to the applicant in the main proceedings, which is the subject of this application, would not give rise to a substantial injustice. Therefore, the application for leave to appeal was dismissed. The legal principles that apply to the granting of leave to appeal against an interlocutory decision are well-known and the applicant must establish that the decision at first instance is attended with sufficient doubt to warrant it being reconsidered by the Full Court and that substantial injustice would result if leave were refused. The court found that the applicant had not established either of these limbs. The respondent to this application has liberty to apply generally and the parties have liberty to apply in relation to costs.