Mary Norris v Douglas Routley

Link copied
Case Copied 1 min read

MARY NORRIS

v

DOUGLAS ROUTLEY

[2017] HCASL 104
S12/2017

  1. The application for special leave to appeal does not raise a question of general importance.  The applicant's proposed appeal grounds do not enjoy sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. 

  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
3 May 2017 		J.J. Edelman
CaseChat AU logo

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Mary Norris v Douglas Routley 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
[2017] HCASL 104
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Mary Norris brought an action against Douglas Routley in the Supreme Court of South Australia, seeking damages for personal injuries she allegedly sustained in a car accident that occurred on 18 December 2010. Routley denied liability and the case proceeded to trial before a jury. The jury returned a verdict in favour of the defendant, finding that he was not liable for the accident. Norris subsequently applied to the Supreme Court of South Australia for leave to appeal against the verdict, but her application was dismissed. Norris then applied for special leave to appeal to the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue in this case was whether the application for special leave to appeal raised a question of general importance and whether the proposed grounds of appeal had sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court was required to determine whether the case met the criteria set out in the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth) for the grant of special leave.

The High Court of Australia found that the application for special leave to appeal did not raise a question of general importance and that the proposed grounds of appeal did not have sufficient prospects of success to warrant a grant of special leave. The court held that the case did not meet the criteria for special leave as set out in the High Court Rules 2004 (Cth). The court directed the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.

In light of the above, the High Court of Australia dismissed the application for special leave to appeal and ordered that the applicant pay the respondent's costs. This decision is a reminder of the stringent criteria that must be met for an application for special leave to appeal to succeed, and the importance of demonstrating that the case raises a question of general importance and has sufficient prospects of success.

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.